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

MICHAEL K. MATTOX, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:19-cv-2154-MSN-dkv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF KANSAS; TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOUGLAS COUNTY JAIL; SHAWNEE COUNTY JAIL; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and LARNED STATED HOSPITAL,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for Sua Sponte Dismissal dated August 26, 2019 (“Report”). (ECF No. 6.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff Michael K. Mattox, Sr.’s pro se complaint be dismissed pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 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 with prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint. Title

(a)(3) provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). An appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous.

The same considerations that lead this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte also compel this Court to conclude that an appeal by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith.

It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal by Plaintiff in this matter would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of September, 2019.

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