Howard v. Gomez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SCOTT HOWARD, SR., Plaintiff, VS. No. 24-1222-STA-jay CHESLEA M. GOMEZ, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISMISSAL

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that the complaint filed in this matter be dismissed sua sponte. Magistrate Judge Jon A. York submitted his Report and Recommendation on October 9, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report within the requisite time. When a party objects within the allotted time, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, the Court need not review those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made, as in the present case, and may adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge without further analysis. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 155 (1985).

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the entire record of the proceedings, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge York correctly determined that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff failed to make any factual allegations against Defendant and failed to articulate any cause of action. Accordingly, this matter is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: October 30, 2024