Bumpus v. Howard

M.D. Tennessee

Bumpus v. Howard

DecidedFebruary 16, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-01081

StatusUnknown

This text of Bumpus v. Howard (Bumpus v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bumpus v. Howard, (M.D. Tenn. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

PATRICK L. BUMPUS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:19-cv-01081 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) ROBERT HOWARD, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 66, “R & R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Brun [sic] (Doc. No. 60) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants Brunis, Deal, Nilus and Vantell [sic] (Doc. No. 62) be granted.1 As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendant Bruines’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 52) as moot. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation 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); 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

1 The full names (with correct spelling) of the relevant Defendants are as follows: James Deal, f/n/u Nibus, and V. Vontell. The final relevant Defendant is spelled as “Chris Bruines” in the case caption, “Brun” in his Motion to Dismiss, and as “Brunis” or “Brun” in Plaintiff’s filings. The Court believes all of these references to refer to the same Defendant (Chris Bruines, as listed in the case caption) and will refer to him as Defendant Bruines. Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Bruines in both motions. 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, 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 Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants Bruines, Deal, Nibus, and Vontell are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendant Bruines’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. No. 52). IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

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

PATRICK L. BUMPUS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:19-cv-01081 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) ROBERT HOWARD, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 66, “R & R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Brun [sic] (Doc. No. 60) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants Brunis, Deal, Nilus and Vantell [sic] (Doc. No. 62) be granted.1 As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendant Bruines’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 52) as moot. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation 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); 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

1 The full names (with correct spelling) of the relevant Defendants are as follows: James Deal, f/n/u Nibus, and V. Vontell. The final relevant Defendant is spelled as “Chris Bruines” in the case caption, “Brun” in his Motion to Dismiss, and as “Brunis” or “Brun” in Plaintiff’s filings. The Court believes all of these references to refer to the same Defendant (Chris Bruines, as listed in the case caption) and will refer to him as Defendant Bruines. Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Bruines in both motions. 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, 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 Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants Bruines, Deal, Nibus, and Vontell are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendant Bruines’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. No. 52). IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bumpus v. Howard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bumpus-v-howard-tnmd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack