White v. Czeck

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 1/8/15. (Lipman, Sheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHNNY A. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREA CZECK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14-cv-2172-SHL-cgc

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DISMISSING CASE

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed December
11, 2014. (ECF No. 12.) In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be dismissed for failure
to prosecute. For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is
adopted in its entirety.
Defendant Andrea Czeck filed a Motion to Dismiss in this case on August 29, 2014,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff Johnny White
(“Mr. White”) failed to file a response to the motion within twenty-eight days as is required
under Local Rule 12.1. The Magistrate Judge issued an order on November 6, 2014, giving Mr.
White fourteen days to show cause as to why she should not issue a Report and Recommendation
that suggested dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 11.) When Plaintiff failed
to respond to the show cause order, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
on December 11, 2014, finding that because Mr. White had ignored the Court’s orders and failed

to meaningfully participate in the case, dismissal was appropriate pursuant to the Court’s
inherent power to control its docket. (ECF No. 12 at 2.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “[w]ithin 14 days after being
served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No
objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections
has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2), 6(d), 72(b)(2).
“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(b)
advisory committee notes. On clear-error review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Pro Se Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January, 2015.
s/ SHERYL H. LIPMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE