Simpson v. AT&T Mobility et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 11/28/2023. (gkp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
BRENDA-JOYCE SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T MOBILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:23-cv-1216-STA-jay

______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted filed on November 7, 2023. (ECF No.
7.) Because Plaintiff was permitted to proceed as a pauper, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When a magistrate judge issues a Report and
Recommendation regarding a dispositive matter, the district court must review de novo any
portion of the Report to which a proper objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, review further evidence, or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that a party may file “specific written objections” to a
report and recommendation, and Local Rule 72.02(a) provides that such objections must be
written and must state with particularity the specific portions of the proposed findings or

recommendations to which an objection is made. Objections must be specific; a general
objection is not sufficient and may result in waiver of further review. See Downs v. McDonough,
2022 WL 411845, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 2022) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th
Cir. 1995)).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report within
the fourteen-day requisite time. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501
F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879)). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 152 (1985) (holding that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver/forfeiture rule is within its supervisory
powers and “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the entire
record and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety, and this action is
hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 8) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the
Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: November 28, 2023

2