Joseph Fox v. Darren Hall

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH FOX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 3:25-cv-00839 ) DARREN HALL, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER On July 24, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Darren Hall’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 22) and that the Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief (Doc. No. 1) be denied.. The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that any objections to the R&R must be filed within 14 days of service. (Id. at 13-14). When service is made by mail, three additional days are added to the prescribed period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The deadline to object was August 10, 2026. Neither party filed any objections. Where, as here, there are no “timely objection[s]” to the R&R, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citations omitted); see also Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)) (“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.”). Having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court finds no clear error. The R&R (Doc. No. 22) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED. The Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WAVERLY AD. Cites JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE