Bawcom v. Roades

District Court, M.D. Tennessee·Decided December 6, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00923·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

RALPH A. BAWCOM, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:22-cv-00923 v. ) ) JUDGE RICHARDSON

DUSTY ROADES et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 51), recommending that the Court grant the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Lieutenant Chad Youker (Doc. No. 34, “Youker Motion”) and Defendant Dr. Kenneth Mathews (Doc. No. 34, “Mathews Motion”) (collectively, “Defendants”). No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time for filing objections has now expired.1 The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). 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. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.,

1 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro-se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff, the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported by mail. 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. /d. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and the file. The R&R is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 24, 34) are GRANTED and the claims against Defendants are DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Dr. Kenneth Mathews and Lieutenant Chad Youker as party defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. Chi Richerdtamn Che Ruck UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bawcom v. Roades, (M.D. Tenn. 2023).

Bawcom v. Roades (Bawcom v. Roades) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc.
322 F. Supp. 3d 879 (W.D. Tennessee, 2018)