Guthrie v. Adjuvants Unlimited LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02871
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

SEAN ROBERT GUTHRIE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-02871-MSN-tmp JURY DEMAND

ADJUVANTS UNLIMITED LLC, and INDUSTRIAL OILS UNLIMITED, also known as KFM ENTERPRISES,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8, “Report”), entered August 6, 2025.1 The Report recommends dismissing this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service after notice and an opportunity to show cause. No objections were filed. STANDARD OF REVIEW Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of 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 dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been

1 Plaintiff consented to receive Notices of Electronic Filing (“NEFs”) via CM/ECF. (ECF No. 1-3.) 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 record and finds no clear error. The Chief Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice under Rul 4(m) after he failed to complete service within the time allowed, and Plaintiff did not respond. The Chief Magistrate Judge further warned in his Report that: WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); L.R. 72.1(g)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL.

(ECF No. 8 at PageID 20.) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) in its entirety. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of August, 2025. s/ Mark S. Norris MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE