SEAN LEE v. UNITED ACCESS LLC and STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ SEAN LEE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:25-cv-02544-BCL-tmp UNITED ACCESS LLC and STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), entered February 2, 2026. (Doc. 49) The Report recommends that defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 25, 27), be denied as moot. The parties had fourteen days after being served to file objections. The parties did not file an objection in the prescribed time period.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of certain 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 non-dispositive orders, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 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 or error of law in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge warned that: WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(B)(2); L.R. 72.1(G)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL. (Doc. 49 at 2-3) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed, so the plaintiffs have forfeited any challenge to the Report. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

For both of those independently sufficient reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49). The defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 25, 27) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March, 2026. s/Brian C. Lea BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE