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

PAMELA ORMOND,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:19-cv-2070-MSN-cgc 745 CASH,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated June 7, 2019 (“Report”). (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff Pamela Ormond’s pro se complaint against Defendant 745 Cash be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff failed to either submit a properly completed non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400 civil filing fee in a timely manner pursuant to the Court’s order (ECF No. 6). Congress enacted

to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis,

(6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States,

, 869–70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson,

(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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or recommendations.

(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. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See

. The deadline to object to the Report has passed, and Plaintiff has filed no objections. The

Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of August, 2019.

s/ Mark S. Norris MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE