Johnson et al v. SunTrust Bank et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting 7 Amended Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 9/4/14. (CNM, ) Copy of Order mailed to Plaintiffs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
MARGARET R. JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUNTRUST BANK, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-172
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On July 18, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her
Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that: (1)
Plaintiff Margaret R. Johnson’s IFP application (Doc. 2) be denied, and (2) Plaintiffs’
claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.
The parties have not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Amended 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 Lee’s
recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b).

Plaintiff Margaret R.

Johnson’s IFP application (Doc. 2) is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ claims are hereby

Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to object to the
Amended Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive the right to appeal the
district court’s order. (Doc. 21 at 27); 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

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief can
be granted.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 2014.

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

2