DePinto v. Hammond et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting Judge William B. Carter's 3 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 9/19/2013. (BJL, )***Mailed to Frank DePinto.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA FRANK DEPINTO, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. JIM HAMMOND, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:13-cv-155 Judge Mattice Magistrate Judge Carter ORDER On July 3, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that this action be DISMISSED and Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed de novo 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 action is DISMISSED without prejudice and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as MOOT.                                                              Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiff that he 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. 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”). 1 SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2013. /s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______ HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2   

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?