Patrick v. Childress et al
ORDER adopting #7 Report and Recommendations and Dismissing the #1 Complaint, signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on 11/17/2022. (Mays, Samuel)
Case 2:22-cv-02659-SHM-tmp Document 8 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
RENA MAE CHILDRESS, et. al.,
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN FULL AND
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff Marshall Patrick filed a pro
se complaint alleging violations of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) He also filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, which was granted on September 28, 2022. (ECF Nos.
2, 6.) On September 29, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Tu M.
Pham issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
complaint be dismissed. (ECF No. 7.) The Report and Recommendation
Patrick appears to be suing his siblings, who are private
citizens, for failing to share the proceeds from renting
their late mother’s house. Patrick has not alleged that
his siblings acted under color of state law, as is
required to state a claim under § 1983, and his complaint
is devoid of factual allegations that would be
actionable under § 1983. (Id. at 4.)
Case 2:22-cv-02659-SHM-tmp Document 8 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff seeks recovery under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court has jurisdiction.
III. Standard of Review
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the
federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court
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
determine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 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.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
The district court should adopt the findings and rulings of the
Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed no
more than 14 days after the Report and Recommendation was filed.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Report and Recommendation was filed
Case 2:22-cv-02659-SHM-tmp Document 8 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3
on September 29, 2022. More than 14 days have passed, and no
objections have been filed. Because there are no objections, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. The Complaint
is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED in full and the Complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2022.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
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?