Umphrey v. Pineridge Treatment Center

Filing 4

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3 Report and Recommendations ; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.Case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 11/18/2015. (SAC, )Order mailed to Umphrey.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
RALPH E. UMPHREY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PINERIDGE TREATMENT CENTER,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-276
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On October 22, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, Plaintiff’s action – which seeks damages in connection with Plaintiff being
allegedly “roboticised” against his will – 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 Lee’s wellreasoned conclusions.

Magistrate Judge Lee 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. 3 at 2 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 Lee’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 18th day of November, 2015.

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

2