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.
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?