Bright v. The Board of Equalization et al

Filing 11

ORDER accepting and adopting 10 Report and Recommendations; denying as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 6 Motion to Ask a Question; denying as moot 8 Motion Filed Under Title 28 U.S.C.; denying as moot 9 Motion to Vacate Judgment. Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 2/22/2016. (aws, ) Mailed to Edna Bright.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
EDNA B. BRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-61
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On February 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 10). Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that (1) this action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted due to this Court’s
lack of jurisdiction, and (2) that all other pending motions be denied as moot.
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 Lee’s wellreasoned conclusions. Specifically, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims.
Accordingly,


The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations (Doc. 10);

Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised Plaintiff that she had 14 days in which to object to the Report
and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive her right to appeal. (Doc. 10 at 6 n.5); 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



Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is hereby
DENIED AS MOOT;



Plaintiff’s Motion to Ask a Question (Doc. 6) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT;



Plaintiff’s Motion Filed Under Title 28 U.S.C. (Doc. 8) is hereby DENIED AS
MOOT;



Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment (Doc. 9) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT;
and



Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2016.

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

2