UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington)

CENTRAL KENTUCKY TRUCK AND ) TRAILER SALES, LLC, ) ) Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-218-CHB Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE ) JUDGE’S REPORT & UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) RECOMMENDATION ) Defendants. *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett. [R. 24]. The Report & Recommendation addresses Defendant Travis C. Hundley’s “Motion for Crossclaim,” in which he seeks leave to file a crossclaim against Defendants United States of America and Zachary L. Combs.1 [DN 17]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Hundley’s motion be denied. [R. 24, p. 1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation and deny Hundley’s motion to file a crossclaim. In the Report & Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Stinnett first briefly detailed the facts surrounding this litigation, which involves an auto accident between Hundley and Combs, a United States Postal Service employee. [R. 24, p. 1–2]. The Magistrate Judge next considered whether the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) permits Hundley to assert a crossclaim against Combs and the United States of America. Id. at 2. Under the FTCA, a claimant seeking to institute a claim against the United States for the negligent acts of a government employee must

1 Defendant Zachary Combs has since been dismissed. See [R. 25; R. 26]. first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency and wait for that claim to be denied by the agency. Id. (citing

(a)). Hundley never presented such a claim to the United States Postal Service.

. Thus, the Magistrate Judge explained, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and his motion to file a crossclaim should be denied.

In the Report & Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Stinnett advised the parties that any

objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of the recommended decision.

The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the recommended decision nor sought an extension of time to do so. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report & Recommendation to which objections are made.

(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White,

(6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters,

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation, [R. 24], is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. Defendant Travis C. Hundley’s “Motion for Crossclaim,” [R. 17], is DENIED. This the 14th day of October, 2022. TIS . i> Le? Ka Bey □□ onice Heuroond 5 Tile CLARIAHORN Boo, ie SS © UUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE emu” «EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF So KENTUCKY

_3-