Moore et al v. Knox County et al

Filing 20

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendations. After thorough consideration of the R&R and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the R&R properly analyzes the issues presented. For the reasons s et out in the R&R, which are incorporated by reference herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R [Doc. 17] is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED. A separate judgment shall enter. Signed by District Judge Clifton L Corker on 03/11/2025. (Copy of Order mailed to Rex Moore and Deanna Moore) (CAT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
KNOXVILLE DIVISION
REX MOORE and DEANNA MOORE
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:24-CV-00196-DCLC-DCP

ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 17]. In the R&R, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s1
application to proceed in forma pauperis, but recommends that the District Court dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. [Id.]. The parties did not file objections to the R&R.2 See Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b).
After thorough consideration of the R&R and the record as a whole, the Court finds that
the R&R properly analyzes the issues presented. For the reasons set out in the R&R, which are
incorporated by reference herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R [Doc. 17] is ADOPTED,
and Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED. A separate judgment shall enter.
SO ORDERED:
s/ Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge

1

The Court refers only to Plaintiff Rex Moore because—as the magistrate judge explained—
Deanna Moore was not included in the original caption and did not sign the complaint nor file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis even after an opportunity to do so. [Doc. 17, pg. 1 n. 2].
2
Failure to file objections within the 14-day period pursuant to Rule 72(b) results in waiver
of the right to appeal the Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-54 (1985).