Smith v. Jones

Filing 10

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 9 , DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's slander and defamation claims, DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim, and CERTIFYING that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and that Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 08/17/2018. (Parker, Thomas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
JASON J. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED JONES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-02654-TLP-cgc
JURY DEMAND

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from Magistrate Judge
Charmaine G. Claxton. (ECF No. 9.) The R&R recommends (1) dismissal of Plaintiff’s
claims, (2) certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and (3) denial of any
potential motion for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Id. at PageID 20–21.)
Specifically, Plaintiff’s claim seeks $2.5 million in compensatory damages for slander and
defamation. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 2–3.) The R&R argues that these claims are a matter of
state law and that Plaintiff asserts no diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9 at PageID 20.)
Furthermore, the R&R concludes that any potential § 1983 claim fails to state a claim under
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at PageID 19–20.) As a result, it
recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s slander and defamation claims without prejudice and
dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim with prejudice. (Id. at PageID 20.)
“Within 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). Plaintiff did not object to the R&R and his
objection window expired on July 30, 2018. 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 note. After reviewing the R&R, the Court finds no clear error. The
Court thus ADOPTS the R&R, DISMISSES Plaintiff’s slander and defamation claims
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim WITH PREJUDICE, and
CERTIFIES that an appeal would not be taken in good faith that Plaintiff may not proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of August, 2018.
s/ Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2