Dodd v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee et al

Filing 60

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 46 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/25/16. (KFB, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
BOBBY DODD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Case No. 1:14-cv-358
v.
)
)
Judge Mattice
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA,
)
TENNESSEE, et al.,
)
Magistrate Judge Steger
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER
On January 4, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed
his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended
that Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend/Revise Complaint (Doc. 35) be denied.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s
well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Steger’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46), and Plaintiff’s
Second Motion to Amend/Revise Complaint (Doc. 35) is hereby DENIED.

Magistrate Judge Steger 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. 46 at 3 n.1); 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.

1

SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2