Quinn v. Union City Group Home at Generations

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 4/5/16. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
LEONARD QUINN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UNION CITY GROUP HOME AT
GENERATIONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-1104-JDT-egb

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff Leonard Quinn, who currently resides in Memphis, Tennessee,
filed a pro se civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accompanied by a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) United States Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant
subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) On March 9, 2016,
Magistrate Judge Bryant issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended
the case be dismissed sua sponte. (ECF No. 6.) Objections to the R&R were due within fourteen
days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), (d). However, Plaintiff has
filed no objections to the R&R, and the time within which to do so has expired.
Plaintiff has sued the Union City Group Home at Generations. The Magistrate Judge noted
that although he seeks compensation, Plaintiff’s actual claims cannot be discerned beyond the fact
that he was not satisfied with the conditions at the Group Home. Magistrate Judge Bryant also
found that any claims for injunctive relief are moot because Plaintiff is no longer at the Group

Home; indeed, Plaintiff states he was there “for only a couple days.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Therefore,
the Magistrate Judge determined that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.
Plaintiff complains that the food portions at the Group Home were inadequate and that when
he asked for a pack of cigarettes, he was given the wrong kind. When Plaintiff told “them” he was
physically and mentally able to manage his own money and food stamps, “they” told another tenant
that Plaintiff was a bad influence. (Id.) However, Plaintiff has not alleged that he was actually
harmed by any of these things. Therefore, the Court agrees that this case should be dismissed.
The Court ADOPTS the R&R and hereby DISMISSES this case for failure to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it is
CERTIFIED that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to proceed
on appeal in forma pauperis is, therefore, DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2