Cunningham v. Rapid Capital Funding, LLC/RCF et al

Filing 141

ORDER: Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss filed by CallerID4, Luis Martinez, GIP Technology, Inc., Ada Maduno, and Paul Maduno1 ( 132 ) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants CallerID4, Luis Martinez, GIP Technology, Inc., Ada Mad uno, and Paul Maduno are DISMISSED with prejudice. In addition, Plaintiff's claims against the John and Jane Does 1-5 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obtain service of process upon them. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 7/9/19. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CRAIG CUNNINGHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RAPID CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC/RCF, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.

NO. 3:16-cv-2629
JUDGE RICHARDSON

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 139), to which no Objections have been filed.
The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at * 2
(M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., Case No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL
1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of
the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health
System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security,
Case No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at * 3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court
should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Id.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. Not only did
Plaintiff fail to object to the Report and Recommendation, but he also failed to file any opposition
to the pending Motion to Dismiss. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss filed by CallerID4, Luis Martinez, GIP Technology,
Inc., Ada Maduno, and Paul Maduno1 (Doc. No. 132) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants CallerID4, Luis Martinez, GIP Technology, Inc., Ada Maduno, and Paul Maduno are
DISMISSED with prejudice. In addition, Plaintiff’s claims against the John and Jane Does 1-5 are
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obtain service of process upon them in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Report and Recommendation refers to these Defendants as “the Gateway Defendants.” Doc.
No. 139 at 2. This appears to be in error (or at least inexact), as the only Defendant with “Gateway”
in its name is Gateway Sales and Marketing, LLC, which has not moved to dismiss the claims
against it.
1

2