Krasner Loan Co., Inc d/b/a American Loan Company v. Ferraris

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ KRASNER LOAN COMPANY, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN LOAN COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:24-cv-02177-MSN-cgc JURY DEMAND EMIL S. FERRARIS, BRENT E. WEIRICH, CITY OF BARTLETT, TENNESSEE, and MATT ROBINSON, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 104, “Report”), entered August 26, 2025. The Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Bartlett (“the City”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id. at PageID 608.) Plaintiff had fourteen (14) days after being served to file objections. Plaintiff has not submitted any objections.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869–70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The Court has reviewed the Report and the entire record in this matter and finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. The Magistrate Judge warned that: ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE SAID OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL. (ECF No. 104 at PageID 609.) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 104) in its entirety. The City’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 70) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against the City are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of September, 2025. s/ Mark S. Norris MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE