Lakendra Marie Rivers v. Lashonda Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA LAKENDRA MARIE RIVERS, ) ) Case No. 1:25-cv-288 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru LASHONDA WILLIAMS, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru’s report and recommendation that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice and deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as moot with no filing fee assessed. (Doc. 8, at 1.) Plaintiff Lakendra Marie Rivers, proceeding pro se, filed this action on September 8, 2025, (see Doc. 1), while a report and recommendation in a previous, related case1 (“Rivers I”) was still pending. (Doc. 8, at 3.)

In his report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dumitru found that Plaintiff “failed to state a proper claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.” (Id. at 1.) Specifically, the report notes that Plaintiff’s allegations involve “vague, disjointed sentence fragments” regarding the reduction or termination of her Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (See id. at 3–4.)

Magistrate Judge Dumitru found that the Court lacks jurisdiction over review Plaintiff’s terminated SSI benefits because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as See Lakendra Marie Rivers v. The Company Lab, 1:25-cv-273-TRM-MJD (E.D. Tenn., filed Aug. 19, 2025). required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (See id. at 4–5 (citing Wood v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-CV-323-TAV-CHS, 2023 WL 2664738, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2023); Gray v. Berryhill, No. 12-12433, 2017 WL 4778712, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2017)).

Furthermore, the report found that Plaintiff also failed to include any supporting facts for potential tort claims against Defendant Lashonda Williams and noted that the instant action may be barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s prior related lawsuit. (Id. at 5.) Magistrate Judge Dumitru concluded that “justice would not be served by granting Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint” due to these defects. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Dumitru advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. (See id. at 6 n.3.) No party has filed an objection, and the time for doing so has passed.

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dumitru’s well-reasoned conclusions, and it hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS his report and recommendation (Doc. 8). It is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot. No filing fee shall be assessed in this case, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Additionally, Plaintiff is further FOREWARNED that the continued filing of cases that fail to pass 28 U.S.C. § 1915 screening may result in her being enjoined from filing future pleadings without prior Court permission.2 SO ORDERED. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (See Doc. 8, at 6 (citing Smith v. Akron City Council, Nos. 98-3389, 98-3465, 1999 WL 183409, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 16, 1999) (“A district court has the authority to issue an injunctive order to prevent prolific litigants from filing leadings without first obtaining court approval to do so.”)).)