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

VICTORIA L. ALDRIDGE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:20-cv-2122-MSN-cgc

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICE,

JANE CANE, Supervisor of DCS, in her official capacity,

TYLITA FRIERSON, Investigator for DCS, in her individual and official capacity,

SHAQUITA HOLT, Family Social Worker for DCS, in her individual and official capacity,

CYNTHIA ROGERS, Supervisor of DCS, in her official capacity,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 1915 ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation On In Forma Pauperis Screening Pursuant To

(“Report”). (ECF No. 8.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed pursuant to

for failure to state a claim upon 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

. Objections to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition “must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie,

(6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn,

(stating that the purpose of the rule is to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”). Each objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was

wrong, and how de novo review will obtain a different result on that particular issue. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1991). A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the magistrate judge, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report and recommendation.

When an objection reiterates the arguments presented to the magistrate judge, the report and recommendation should be reviewed for clear error. Verdone v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV- 14178,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States,

(S.D.N.Y. 2012)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Dolgencorp, LLC,

(E.D. Tenn. 2017). 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 14th day of August 2020. s/ Mark S. Norris MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE