Nelson v. Unum Group Corporation d/b/a Unum Life Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; adopting Report and 22 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 8/11/14. (GRE, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
DENISE EVANS NELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM GROUP CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-58
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter

ORDER
On July 22, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law be denied, Plaintiff’s action be dismissed, and
judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Unum.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record in this matter, and
it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law (Doc. 16) is hereby DENIED, and Plaintiff’s action is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiff that she had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive her right to appeal. (Doc. 22 at 18);
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”).

1

SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2014.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2