Doe v. Haslam

Opinion

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

JOHN DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:16-cv-2862 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) WILLIAM B. LEE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

JOHN DOE #2, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:17-cv-0264 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) WILIAM B. LEE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 138), recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fee Award (Doc. No. 128) be granted and that the Court award attorney’s fees to Doe #1 in the amount of $196,042.50 and to Doe #2 in the amount of $16,379.00. 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 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, the Court awards attorney’s fees of in the amount of $196,042.50 to Doe #1 and $16,379.00 to Doe #2. IT IS SO ORDERED. CL Rechondser UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE