Scott et al v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

Filing 42

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendations re 38 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 09/24/2018.

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

RAPHAEL SCOTT and
DANNISE SCOTT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

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

No. 2:17-cv-02693-SHM-cgc

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, dated September 6, 2018 (the “Report”).
No. 41.)

(ECF

The Report recommends that the Court dismiss with

prejudice Plaintiffs Raphael Scott and Dannise Scott’s action
against

Defendant

Allstate

Vehicle

and

Property

Insurance

Company for failure to prosecute in accordance with Rules 37 and
41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Although
the Report advised the parties that any objections must be filed
within 14 days of service, no objections have been filed.
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).

A district court has the

authority to “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings,
including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the
court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the
disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).
The district court has appellate jurisdiction over any
decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to a referral.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

“A district judge must

determine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

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

The district court is not required to

review -- under a de novo or any other standard -- “any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.”
U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Thomas v. Arn, 474

The district court should adopt the

findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific
objection is filed.

Id.; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d

947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981.)
Neither party has objected to the Report, and the deadline
to do so under Local Rule 72.1 has passed.
§ 636(b)(1)(C).

See also 28 U.S.C.

The Court has reviewed the Report and found

that its recommendation is warranted.
51.
2

See Arn, 474 U.S. at 150-

The Report is ADOPTED, and this action is DISMISSED, with
prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

So ordered this 24th day of September, 2018.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3