Tabor v. Worley

District Court, M.D. Tennessee·Decided March 12, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-00008·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY LYNN TABOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00008 ) AMANDA WORLEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER On February 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 38) recommending that the Court grant Cumberland County Sheriff Casey Cox’s Motion for Summary Judgment because Cox is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 1, 6, 13). Plaintiff Jeffrey Lynn Tabor, proceeding pro se, has not filed any objections to the R&R, despite the R&R’s specific warnings regarding waiver. The absence of any objections relieves the Court from engaging in de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (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.”). The Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and reasoning for her recommended disposition. Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 38) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED, and Defendant Cox’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED. This is a final order. The Clerk shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WAVERLY hd. Cin JR. : UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tabor v. Worley, (M.D. Tenn. 2025).

Tabor v. Worley (Tabor v. Worley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)