Hunter v. United States Government

Opinion

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

LONZELL HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-02137-MSN-atc

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11, “Report”), entered August 12, 2025.1 The Report recommends sua sponte dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 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

1 Plaintiff consented to receive Notices of Electronic Filing (“NEFs”) via CM/ECF. (ECF No. 1-3.) 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 Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, and that dismissal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Magistrate Judge further warned in her Report that: Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation disposition, a party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days may constitute forfeiture/waiver of objections, exceptions, and further appeal.

(ECF No. 11 at PageID 36.) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) 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