Carry v. Raybin et al

Filing 18

ORDER: Having conducted a de novo review of the matter in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Accordingly, (1) The R & R 16 is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 14 is hereby GRANTED because Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 12/14/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw) Modified on 12/15/2011 (tmw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
EILEEN CARRY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DAVID LOUIS RAYBIN and
)
HOLLINS, RAYBIN & WEISMAN, P.C., )
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:11-cv-0818
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Brown

ORDER
On November 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R
& R”) (Docket Entry No. 16), recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry
No. 14) be granted because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations T.C.A. § 283-104(a)(2) and thus, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Despite being specifically advised in the R & R that any objections to the recommended
disposition needed to be filed within fourteen days, Plaintiff filed no objections.
Having conducted a de novo review of the matter in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Accordingly,
(1) The R & R (Docket Entry No. 16) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 14) is hereby GRANTED because
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
(3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE