Johnson v. Oldham et al

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Adopting 16 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 1/17/17. (Lipman, Sheryl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION FELICIA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM OLDHAM, SHERIFF, and SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 16-cv-2587-SHL-dkv ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s pro se complaint. (ECF No. 16.) A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). When neither party objects to the magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, the district court need not review those findings under a de novo or any other standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). “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. Here, the deadline to file an objection to the R&R was January 10, 2017; however, to date, Plaintiff has not filed an objection. On clear-error review of the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Pro Se Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of January, 2017. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?