Jones v. State of Tennessee Department of Correction

• Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
• Decided: March 8, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00340
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

MARIO D. JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:20-cv-0340 ) STATE OF TENESSEE ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et ) al., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 45) recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 25) be granted. No objections have been filed to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). If there are no objections, the district court is not required to review the R&R de novo, and should “adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed.” See Benson v. Walden Sec., No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205077, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court agrees with the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED. The Court also notes that following the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a Declaration of intent to file an Amened Complaint (Doc. No. 46) and an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 47). Plaintiff’s filings are not in accord with either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rule 15.01. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (requiring leave of court to amend); see also M. D. Tenn. R. 15.01 (requiring a Motion to Amend Pleadings). However, the Court will construe the filings as a motion and find that, because the time for amending the complaint has passed, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WAVERI 3 As CRENSHAW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE