Flores v. U.S. Attorney General, et al

Filing 5

ORDER accepting and adopting 4 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 6/8/2015. (BJL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
ERIC FLORES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, )
and FEDERAL BUREAU OF
)
INVESTIGATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-88
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter

ORDER
On May 11, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. (Id.).
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1

Nevertheless,

the

Court

has

reviewed

the

Report

and

Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s
well-reasoned conclusions.

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 any right to appeal. (Doc. 4 at 4 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 objections has now expired.

1

Accordingly,


The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule
72(b);



Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED;



This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2015.

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

2