Green v. Tieche et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (dkt. # 27 ) is ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. It is further ORDERED that the plainti ff's motion for an extension (dkt. # 24 ) and motion to defer response to order [dkt. #25] are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge David M. Lawson on 5/19/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BOBBY D. GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number 15-00865
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley

ALBERT U. TIECHE, ALEX GREEN
MIDDLE SCHOOL POLLING PRECINCT,
and BORDEAUX LIBRARY,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Presently before the Court is the report issued on March 4, 2017 by Magistrate Judge Jeffery
S. Frensley pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that this case be dismissed without
prejudice for want of prosecution. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the parties to
this action had fourteen days from the date of service of the report to object to and seek review of
the recommendation. No objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections
to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the
magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.
#27] is ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of
prosecution.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for an extension [dkt. #24] and motion
to defer response to order [dkt. #25] are DENIED as moot.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Sitting by special designation
Dated: May 18, 2017

-2-