Yu Hin Chan v. Hector Lasalle and Eric Carlson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE YU HIN CHAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-492 v. ) ) Judge Atchley ) HECTOR LASALLE and ERIC ) Magistrate Judge Poplin CARLSON, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER On November 21, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin filed a Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Rules of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 1] be denied and that Plaintiff be afforded twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee. [Doc. 8].

Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.1 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and agrees with Magistrate Judge Poplin’s well-reasoned conclusions.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Poplin’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8]. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. 1] is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the full filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this order. Also, Plaintiff is NOTIFIED Magistrate Judge Poplin advised that the parties had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any right to appeal. [Doc. 13 at 3 n.1]; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). that if he fails to timely pay the filing fee, the Court will dismiss this action for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order without further notice.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr. c CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE