Brandon Price v. Memphis Police Department, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ BRANDON PRICE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:24-cv-02136-BCL-atc MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Annie T. Christoff’s Report and Recommendation and Order on Pending Motions, entered April 24, 2026. (Doc. 119) The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 100) be denied. Plaintiff had fourteen days after being served to file objections. No objection was filed 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 error 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, a party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days may constitute a waiver/forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and further appeal. (Doc. 119 at 10) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed, so Plaintiff forfeited any challenge to the Report. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 119).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 100) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of May, 2026. s/Brian C. Lea BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE