Oakworth Capital Bank v. 6101 Sligo, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

OAKWORTH CAPITAL BANK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:23-cv-01144 v. ) ) JUDGE RICHARDSON

6101 SLIGO, LLC, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

Pending before the Court1 is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 35, “R&R”) filed on May 13, 2024, wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant in part Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 33, “Motion for Default Judgment”) (Doc. No. 14). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff be awarded damages of $6,021,213.34 against Defendants Timothy J. Morris and 6101 Sligo LLC, jointly and severally, but the Magistrate Judge recommends denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for $76,194.00 in attorney’s fees and expenses.2 The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1

1 Herein, “the Court” refers to the undersigned District Judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge who authored and filed the R&R.

2 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff, the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported by U.S. mail. (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (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. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate Judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Jd. As there has been no timely objection, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 35) is ADOPTED, the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants jointly and severally, in the amount of $6,021,213.34, will be entered separately. Plaintiffs at their option may file a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) and Local Rule 54.01(b)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE