Bruce v. Esper

Opinion

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

PATRICIA BRUCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 3-20-cv-00087 ) JUDGE RICHARDSON RYAN D. McCARTHY, Secretary of the ) Army, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 26), to which no Objections have been filed. 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) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., Case No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at *1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019). 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., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, Case 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. Id. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's tort claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Title VII claims remain pending. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE