Hulan v. Coffee County Municipal, 1:19-cv-5. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20190409818
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH , District Judge . On March 4, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Steger concluded that Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted and accordingly recommended that this action be dismissed and Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be denied as mo
Summary: ORDER TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH , District Judge . On March 4, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Steger concluded that Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted and accordingly recommended that this action be dismissed and Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be denied as moo..
More
ORDER
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH, District Judge.
On March 4, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Steger concluded that Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted and accordingly recommended that this action be dismissed and Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be denied as moot. (Doc. 6, at 1.)
Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Steger's Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger's well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED, and Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.
FootNotes
1. Magistrate Judge Steger specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive his right to appeal. (Doc. 6, at 3); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Even taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in which Plaintiff could timely file any objections has now expired.
Source: Leagle
