Lawrence v. Department of Veteran's Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System

Filing 39

ORDER: Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 38 ) is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 1/17/23. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)

Download PDF
  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION PHYLLIS J. LAWRENCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DENIS MCDONOUGH, United States ) Secretary of Veterans Affairs, ) ) Defendant. ) NO. 3:21-cv-00031 JUDGE RICHARDSON ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 38, “R&R”), wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33). No parties have filed an objection within 14 days as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to properly, specifically, and timely object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019). “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object. Moreover, an objection that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context.” Id. at *2 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 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);   Case 3:21-cv-00031 Document 39 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 188   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. Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 38) is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE     Case 3:21-cv-00031 Document 39 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 189

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?