Brandon Price v. City of Memphis, Memphis Police Department, Officer C. Pittman, Officer C. Yancey, Officer McFadden, Officer Mitchell, and Officer McNeal

• Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02136
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

BRANDON PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-02136-BCL-atc

CITY OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER C. PITTMAN, OFFICER C. YANCEY, OFFICER MCFADDEN, OFFICER MITCHELL, and OFFICER MCNEAL

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff’s (Magistrate Judge Christoff) Report and Recommendation (“Report”), entered January 27, 2026. (Doc. 92) The Report recommends that the Motion to Amend (Doc. 50), Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 62), Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. 63), and Motion for Clarification or Request for Default Entry (Doc. 73) be denied. The plaintiff had fourteen days after being served to file objections. The plaintiff did not file an objection in the prescribed time period. The plaintiff filed a follow-up Motion for Clarification and Motion to Amend Complaint on February 18, 2026. (Doc. 100) Magistrate Judge Christoff filed an additional ORDER PROVIDING CLARIFICATION ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION on February 20, 2026. (Doc. 102). This clarification moved Magistrate Judge Christoff from recommending denial of the Motion for Amendment (Doc. 50), to granting in part and recommending denial in part. STANDARD OF REVIEW Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of certain 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 non-dispositive orders, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The Court has reviewed the Report and the entire record in this matter and finds no clear error or error of law in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge warned that: Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation disposition, a party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days may constitute waiver/forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and further appeal. (Doc. 92 at PageID 13-14) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed, so that Plaintiff has forfeited any challenge to the Report. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150. For Both of those independently sufficient reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 92), with the amendment outlined in ORDER PROVIDING CLARIFICATION ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 102). The plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 50) for the purposes of adding Officer Hamilton as a defendant in his official capacity is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 100) is DENIED AS MOOT in part, because Plaintiff has obtained the requested relief in Magistrate Judge Christoff’s ORDER PROVIDING CLARIFICATION ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 102). The plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 62), Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. 63), and Motion for Clarification or Request for Default Entry (Doc. 73) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2026. s/Brian C. Lea BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE