Howard v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM SCOTT HOWARD, Plaintiff, vs. No. 1:23-1262-STA-jay JOSEPH FOX, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISMISSAL

Plaintiff William Scott Howard filed a complaint against Defendant Joseph Fox alleging a claim of excessive force related to an arrest that took place on August 22, 2023. The United States Magistrate Judge has recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) be granted and that various miscellaneous motions be denied. (ECF Nos. 35-40, 47, 50, 54-56, 58, 64-65.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation.1 For the reasons set forth below, the report is ADOPTED in its entirety.

When examining a Report and Recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[ ] releases the Court from its duty to independently review Plaintiff’s mail was returned as undeliverable on September 9, 2025. (ECF No. 70.)

Apparently, Plaintiff moved and left no forwarding address. In the order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6), Plaintiff was advised that he must “promptly notify the Clerk in writing of any change of address. Failure to comply with this requirement, or any other order of the Court, may result in the dismissal of this case without further notice.” Plaintiff has not complied with this mandate. the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). However, after a review of the matter, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s pending motions be denied. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation in its entirety, and this matter is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: September 16, 2025