Gloria Morris v. Service Experts Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION GLORIA MORRIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 3:23-cv-642 ) Judge Trauger SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING AND ) AIR CONDITIONING, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On January 28, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc No. 56), to which timely objections were due to be filed within 14 days. Although the plaintiff has made a filing (Doc. No. 61), it cannot be considered an objection to the R&R, in that it simply documents her inability to find new counsel and attaches materials she has relied upon to support her position in this case since the very beginning. The district court must review de novo any portion of a report and recommendation “that has been properly objected to.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3). However, the court is not required to review under any standard those aspects of a report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). As no objections have been timely and properly filed to the R&R, it is hereby ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 42) is GRANTED, and judgment is hereby entered in the defendant’s favor as to the plaintiff’s claims. Further, the defendant is granted summary Judgment on its counterclaim for breach of contract and is hereby awarded damages in the amount of $10,187.71. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in accordance with Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is so ORDERED. hil Mid dag — USS. District Judge