IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES HUGHES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) NO. 3:22-cv-00562 ) v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) JUSTIN ELAM, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 43, “R&R”), wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 3) and dismiss the case. No party has filed an objection within 14 days as required for a timely objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and

(b)(1). The failure to properly, specifically, and timely 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). “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object. Moreover, an objection that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context.”

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 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, 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. /d. Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 43) is ADOPTED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. This is the final order denying all relief in the case. Therefore, the Clerk SHALL enter judgment. See Rule 58(b)(1)(C). IT IS SO ORDERED. ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE