Ledford v. Hensley
Ledford v. Hensley
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE GREENEVILLE DIVISION
RANDALL EUGENE LEDFORD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) 2:24-CV-00071-DCLC-CRW )
v. )
) MIKE HENSLEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
ORDER This matter is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 9]. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, except the claim against Defendant Darrell Edwards, which the magistrate judge recommends be dismissed without prejudice [Id. at pg. 9]. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). After thorough consideration of the Report and Recommendation and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the magistrate judge properly analyzed the issues presented. For the reasons set out in the Report and Recommendation, which are incorporated by reference herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 9] is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mike Hensley, Walmart Unicoi, Aaron Embler, Jacob Marshall, T Atwood, Unicoi County Sheriff’s Department, and Amy Lamaa are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Darrell Edwards is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
1 Failure to file objections within the 14-day period pursuant to Rule 72(b) results in waiver of the right to appeal the Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 153-54(1985). SO ORDERED:
s/ Clifton L. Corker United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown