Pinckney v. Covenant Logistics Group, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

MAURICE SOCRATES PINCKNEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 1:25-cv-129 v. ) ) Judge Atchley ) COVENANT LOGISTICS GROUP, INC., ) Magistrate Judge Dumitru ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER On July 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru filed a Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Rules of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 14] be dismissed for failure to state a claim and that Plaintiff’s pending motions [Docs. 11, 13] be denied as moot. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has since passed.1 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and agrees with Magistrate Judge Dumitru’s well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dumitru’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17]. The Complaint [Doc. 17] is hereby DISMISSED, and Plaintiffs’ pending motions [Docs. 11, 13] are DENIED AS MOOT. A separate judgment will enter. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.

1 Magistrate Judge Dumitru advised that the parties had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any right to appeal. [Doc. 17 at 10 n.3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), 72(b)(2); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148–51 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr. CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE