Miwinyi v. Howard et al

Filing 69

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants Bruines, Deal, Nibus, and Vontell are DISMISSED without pr ejudice. Defendant Bruines' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. No. 52). Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 2/16/2021. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION PATRICK L. BUMPUS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HOWARD, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:19-cv-01081 JUDGE RICHARDSON ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 66, “R & R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Brun [sic] (Doc. No. 60) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants Brunis, Deal, Nilus and Vantell [sic] (Doc. No. 62) be granted.1 As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendant Bruines’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 52) as moot. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation 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., 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 1 The full names (with correct spelling) of the relevant Defendants are as follows: James Deal, f/n/u Nibus, and V. Vontell. The final relevant Defendant is spelled as “Chris Bruines” in the case caption, “Brun” in his Motion to Dismiss, and as “Brunis” or “Brun” in Plaintiff’s filings. The Court believes all of these references to refer to the same Defendant (Chris Bruines, as listed in the case caption) and will refer to him as Defendant Bruines. Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Bruines in both motions. 1 Case 3:19-cv-01081 Document 69 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 623 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, 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. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants Bruines, Deal, Nibus, and Vontell are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendant Bruines’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. No. 52). IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Case 3:19-cv-01081 Document 69 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 624

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?