Ware v. State of Tennessee
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE PRO SE COMPLAINT. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 12/4/17. (skc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARE,
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE PRO SE COMPLAINT
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) of United States
Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant (the “Magistrate Judge”) as to the pro se Complaint (ECF
No. 1) of Plaintiff Kimberly Michelle Ware (“Plaintiff”). The Magistrate Judge filed his Report
and Recommendation on November 17, 2017. When a magistrate judge “submit[s] to a judge of
the [district] court proposed findings of fact and recommendations,” “any party may serve and
file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of
court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)–(C). Any such objection must be made within fourteen days.
Id. § 636(b)(1). Then the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
(italics added). But the Court need not review any portion of the recommendation to which
Plaintiff did not specifically object, and may adopt the findings and rulings of the Chief
Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52
Here, Plaintiff has not filed an objection any part of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. And the time for Plaintiff to do so has passed. Therefore, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Recommendation and Report of the Magistrate Judge in full.
Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint is DISMISSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: December 4, 2017.
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?