Holt v. Target Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

MICHAELA HOLT, a minor child, by ) and through her natural mother and next ) friend, FREDA HOLT, ) )

Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:20-cv-00824 v. ) )

TARGET CORPORATION; YALE )

REALTY SERVICES CORP.; and )

YALE SMYRNA, LLC, ) )

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 49) recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 35) be denied. No objections have been filed. If there are no objections, the district court is not required to review the R&R de novo, and should “adopt the magistrate’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed.” Benson v. Walden Sec., No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)); see also Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18- cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019).

The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and the file in accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agrees with the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WAVERLY AD. Cot JR. ;

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE