Pereira v. City of Lakeland, Tennessee et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
JULIE PEREIRA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 2:24-cv-2380-MSN-atc
JURY DEMAND
CITY OF LAKELAND, TENNESSEE, and
KATRINA SHIELDS,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39,
“Report”) entered on January 12, 2026. 	The Report recommends that Plaintiff Julie Pereira’s
Motion to Enforce Court Order, for Sanctions, and Costs and Fees (ECF No. 22) be denied.
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the
assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th
Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869–70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F.
App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any
part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not
required to review—under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and
recommendation to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district
court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See
id. at 151.
Case 2:24-cv-02380-MSN-atc Document 40 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

2
Objections to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition “must be clear enough to enable the
district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147 (stating that the purpose of the rule is to “focus attention
on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”). Each objection to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was wrong, and how de novo review
will obtain a different result on that particular issue. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously
presented and addressed by the magistrate judge, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report
and recommendation. Id. When an objection reiterates the arguments presented to the magistrate judge, the
report and recommendation should be reviewed for clear error. Verdone v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-
CV-14178, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States, 898 F.
Supp. 2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 277 F.
Supp. 3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).
The Report was entered on January 12, 2026, and all parties received electronic service that same
day. The Report informed the parties that they could file objections within 14 days and that failure to file
objections within that 14 days may constitute waiver/forfeiture of any objections, exceptions, and further
appeal. To date, no objections to the Report have been filed, and the 14 days for doing so have passed. The
Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and found none. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 39) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff Julie Pereira’s Motion to Enforce Court Order, for
Sanctions, and Costs and Fees (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of January, 2026.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02380-MSN-atc Document 40 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>