Hawkins v. MTD Plant

Opinion

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

LEON HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:25-01107-JDB-jay

MTD PLANT; MILAN BOX; EAGLE INN; and RON CARPENTER, JR., also known as Rod Carpenter, Jr.,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

Before the Court is the complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Leon Hawkins, proceeding pro se.1 By Administrative Order, this matter was referred to the United States magistrate judge for management of all pretrial matters and for determination and/or report and recommendation. Admin Order 203-05. Magistrate Judge Jon A. York conducted a screening review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 12 at PageID 4–5.) After reviewing the allegations, Judge York recommended dismissal. (Id. at PageID 10.) At the end of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge notified Hawkins that, if he disagreed with the recommendation, he was required to file an objection or exception within 14 days. (Id.) Judge York added that “failure to file [an

1 On April 25, 2025, the Western District of Michigan transferred this matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (D.E. 6.) objection or exception] within fourteen (14) days may constitute a waiver and/or forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and any further appeal. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and the time for doing so has expired. Hawkins, consequently, has forfeited his objections to the report and recommendation. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). Accordingly,

upon review of the record, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is further declared a vexatious litigant, is enjoined from filing any new petitions or complaints in this Court, or from submitting any new filings in any cases in this Court that have been closed, without first seeking and obtaining the Court’s permission to file. Plaintiff is admonished that he cannot avoid these filing restrictions by filing in other courts. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May 2025. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE