Werlins v. DNI, DOD

Filing 8

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations, and ORDER dismissing complaint without prejudice. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 10/19/2017. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

MIKE WERLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DNI, DOD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-2467-SHM-cgc

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, dated September 1, 2017 (the “Report”).
No. 7.)

(ECF

The Report recommends that Plaintiff Mike Werlins’s

pro se complaint against Defendant DNI, DOD be dismissed
without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Werlins has not filed any objections to the Report, and the
deadline for doing so has passed.

L.R. 72.1(g)(2).

For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and
Werlins’s pro se complaint against Defendant DNI, DOD is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
On July 5, 2017, Werlins filed his complaint.
1.)

(ECF No.

It reads as follows:
Plaintiff brings suit against defendant on grounds of
violation of article six, first amendment, sixth

amendment, ninth amendment, the fourteenth amendment
and due process claus[e] of the United States
constitution.
And in violation of the Universal
declaration of human rights, article[s] 1, 2, 3, 4
and various others.
(ECF No. 1 at 1.) 1
On July 14, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Charmiane
G. Claxton ordered Werlins to file a non-prisoner in forma
pauperis affidavit within thirty days or the action would be
dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
6 at 10.)

(ECF No.

Werlins did not file a non-prisoner in forma

pauperis affidavit within the thirty-day deadline.
On September 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered the
Report.

(ECF No. 7.)

It recommends that the action be

dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

The

Report explains as follows:

On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff Mike Werlins, a
resident of St Charles, Missouri, filed a pro se
complaint. (D.E.# 1.) However, Plaintiff neglected
to pay the $400.00 civil filing fee or submit a
properly completed application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
In an order issued on July 14, 2017, the Court
ordered the Plaintiff to file a properly completed
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
appropriate civil filing fee within thirty (30) days
of the entry of the order. (D.E. # 6) Plaintiff has
not complied with that order and the time set for
compliance has expired.

1

Unless otherwise noted, all in-cite page numbers refer to PageID
numbers.

2

The July 14, 2017 Order provided, in pertinent
part, that “[f]ailure to comply with this order in a
timely manner will result in recommendation that this
action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
for failure to prosecute.” Id. See also, Taman v.
Chertoff,
et
al,
07-cv-2247-SHM-dkv,
Order
of
Dismissal (D.E. # 4) April 30, 2008. It is therefore
RECOMM[E]NDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
for failure to prosecute.
(ECF No. 7 at 11-12.)
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of districtcourt duties to magistrate judges.

See United States v.

Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v.
United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v.
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

For

dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has
been properly objected to.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

After reviewing the evidence, the court is

free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s
proposed findings or recommendations.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district court is not required to review -- under a de novo
or any other standard -- those aspects of the report and
recommendation to which no objection is made.
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Thomas v. Arn,

The district court should adopt the

3

magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific
objection is filed.

Id. at 151.

Werlins has not objected to the Report.
Report should be adopted.

Therefore, the

See Arn, 474 U.S. at 150-51.

For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and
Werlins’s pro se complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered this 19th day of October, 2017.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4