Smith v. Long et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 10 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 12/27/2019. (BDG)ORDER MAILED TO SMITH.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
JAMES DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER LONG, SHERIFF
HAMMOND, NURSE JANE DOE,
MAYOR OF CHATTANOOGA,
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE, WALMART MANAGER
ROBERT, AT&T STORE MANAGER,
AND AMERICA’S BEST VALUE INN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

1:19-CV-226-HSM-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) of United States
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee, recommending the Court assess a filing fee, dismiss this
action without prejudice for want of prosecution, and certify that any appeal from this
action would be totally frivolous. The Magistrate Judge specifically advised Plaintiff that
he had 14 days to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to object
would waive his right to appeal. (Doc. 10 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 “[i]t does not appear that Congress
intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings”). Plaintiff did not file an objection and the time to do so has now passed. The
Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record, and
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusions.
1

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10).
Plaintiff is assessed the full filing fee of $400 and this action is dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court further certifies that any appeal
from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Should
Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he will be denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Additionally, given his repeated frivolous filings, the Court will refer the Plaintiff
to Chief Judge Pamela L. Reeves for consideration of whether injunctive measures are
appropriate pursuant to Standing Order 18-04. Plaintiff has filed no less than 18 lawsuits
this year. Most have been administratively terminated for failure to pay the required filing
fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis after receiving a notice of
deficiency. See, e.g., Smith v. Aushborne, No. 1:19-mc-19; Smith v. Bitakofer, No. 1:19mc-20; Smith v. Chattanooga Memorial Hospital Emergency Room CEO, et al., No. 1:19mc-21; Smith v. Heiniker, et al., No. 1:19-mc-23; Smith v. Robinson, et al., No. 1:19-mc32; Smith v. Core Civic, et al., No. 1:19-mc-38; Smith v. Ashborne, et al., No. 3:19-mc-19.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 18-04, James Douglas Smith is hereby
REFERRED to Chief Judge Pamela Reeves for review and determination of whether an
injunction is appropriate.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. A separate judgment shall enter.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of December, 2019.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr.
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2