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

JAMES-AUSTIN ENGLETT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 1:23-cv-00007 ) CHRISTIAN ROCK, et al., ) JUDGE CAMPBELL ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Holmes’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24) that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Christian Rock and Giles County, Tennessee (Doc. No. 18) be granted and that this case be dismissed. The Court received Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 3, 2023. (Doc. No. 25). For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted and approved. Under

(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v. Curtis,

(6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason,

(6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.”

(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). Here, Plaintiff’s objections fail to identify any specific factual or legal errors on the part of Judge Holmes in making her determination. Objections which do not identify an error are meritless. See Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections fail to state viable grounds to challenge Judge Holmes’ conclusions or otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiffs objections, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Christian Rock and Giles County, Tennessee (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED, and this action is dismissed. It is so ORDERED. VE > (Ld J □

WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, SR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE