Bright v. Braden et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 6/1/2017. (BDG, ) Mailed to Bright.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at WINCHESTER EDNA BRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. PAUL BRADEN, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:16-cv-55 Judge Mattice Magistrate Judge Steger ORDER On May 1, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger filed his Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 6). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended that (1) this action be dismissed without prejudice because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Inunction Act1 and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,2 and (2) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot.3 (Id. at 3–4). Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.4 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the Report and 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1341. 2 See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a nearly identical action in this Court in 2015 in Case No. 4:15-cv-61. The Court dismissed that case on the same grounds upon which it relies today. (See Docs 10, 11 in Case No. 4:15-cv-61). Plaintiff is hereby put ON NOTICE that any future cases she may file alleging the same facts discussed in the present Complaint, (Doc. 1), may be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 Magistrate Judge Steger 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. 6 at 6 n.3); 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. 4 Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly,  The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steger’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations (Doc. 6);  Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 4), is hereby DENIED AS MOOT; and  Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. 1), is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2017. /s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._____ HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?