Laufenberg v. Root

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON JAMIE PATRICK LAUFENBERG, )

) Plaintiff, Civil No. 6:22-cv-00174-GFVT-CJS )

) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) JOHN ROOT, et al., ) &

) ORDER Defendants. ) ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation prepared by United States Magistrate Judge Smith. [R. 48.] Judge Smith reviewed a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Laurel County Sheriff John Root and Deputy Sheriff Hunter Disney. [R. 43.] Judge Smith recommends that the Court grant the Motion. [R. 48.] Because Laufenberg did not object, the Court ADOPTS Judge Smith’s Recommendation [R. 48] as and for the opinion of the Court and will GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). But when no objections are made, as in this case, the Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, the Court has examined the record and agrees with Judge Smith’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [R. 48] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court; 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 43] is GRANTED; 3. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket; and 4. Judgment in this matter will follow promptly.

This the 3d day of September, 2025.

Kote : Wed eK bes Ce Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge