Doe v. Tennessee, State of et al

Filing 160

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiff's filing, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 156 ) should be adopted and approved. For the reasons stated therein, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 3/29/2023. (xc:Pro se parties by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

NO. 3:18-cv-00471
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEWBERN

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
156). In response, Plaintiff filed an “Appeal from Report and Recommendation” (Doc. No. 157).
Defendants filed a response. (Doc. No. 159).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any
portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Without specific objections, “[t]he
functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court
perform identical tasks.” Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court
will be preserved for appellate review.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d
1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C).

Case 3:18-cv-00471 Document 160 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1076

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s filing. (Doc. No. 157). It is clear from those objections
that Plaintiff disagrees with the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. However,
Plaintiff fails to provide a basis to reject or modify the R&R because his objections do not identify
any specific factual or legal error made by the Magistrate Judge.  Instead, Plaintiff essentially rebriefs his entire merits argument. This is insufficient to invoke de novo review. Objections that do
not identify an error are meritless. See Howard, 932 F.2d at 509; Drew v. Tessmer, 36 F. App'x
561, 561 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet
the requirements of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiff’s filing, the
Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 156) should be adopted and
approved. For the reasons stated therein, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.  
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-00471 Document 160 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1077