IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION JOHN SPATES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:18-cv-01305 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) DARREN DOUGLAS, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 54), addressing “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 44) filed by Defendant Darren Douglas, to which no Objections have been filed. The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076,

, at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., Case No. 18-cv-11851,

, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn,

(1985)). 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. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.,

(W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, Case No. 3:18-cv-0010,

, at * 3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed.

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant Darren Douglas’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 44) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED! with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' The only Defendant besides Darren Douglas who had not previously been dismissed is Andrew Jones. (Doc. Nos. 13, 21), who was never served with process. (Doc. Nos. 17 and 23).