Brownlee v. City of Memphis et al
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 9/10/13. (Todd, James)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
SAMUEL BROWNLEE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 12-2052-JDT-tmp
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Samuel Brownlee, a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro se
complaint on January 23, 2012, pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and
1986, accompanied by a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entries
1 & 2.) The Court subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. 3.) On
October 29, 2012, the Court dismissed portions of the complaint and directed that process
be issued for the remaining Defendants. (D.E. 6.) The case was referred to the assigned U.S.
Magistrate Judge on March 27, 2013, for case management and handling of all pretrial
matters by determination or by report and recommendation, as appropriate. (D.E. 8.)
On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff’s daughter, Donna Brownlee, submitted a “Notice of
Death” accompanied by a death certificate showing that Plaintiff died on March 1, 2013.
(D.E. 16.) The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 20, 2013,
in which he recommended that the case be dismissed because no motion for substitution had
been made, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). Objections to that report
and recommendation were due within 14 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). However, no
objections have been filed.
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and this case is
hereby DISMISSED in accordance with Rule 25(a)(1). The Clerk is directed to prepare a
judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?