Miwinyi v. Howard et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
PATRICK L. BUMPUS,
ROBERT HOWARD, et al.,
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
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.
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?