Launa Renee Pigue v. Gibson County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ LAUNA RENEE PIGUE, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-01207-JDB-jay GIBSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION, DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME, AND DISMISSING CASE _____________________________________________________________________________ On May 28, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jon. A. York recommended that the complaint of Plaintiff, Launa Renee Pigue, be dismissed in its entirety for her failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (D.E. 8 at PageID 32.) At the end of the report and recommendation, Judge York notified the parties that, if they disagreed with the recommendation, they were required to file an objection within fourteen days. (Id.) He added that “failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days may constitute waiver and/or forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and further appeal.” (Id. (emphasis omitted)).

Neither party filed an objection within the fourteen-day period. Therefore, on June 16, 2026, the undersigned adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the case. (D.E. 9.)

Soon after the order adopting the report and recommendation was entered, Plaintiff filed an objection, as well as a request for an extension of time. (D.E. 10.) She contends that she “was never served” with the report and recommendation. (Id. at PageID 35.)

Pigue’s objection is barred as untimely because she filed it after the fourteen-day objection period had closed. Furthermore, she had already forfeited her objection by failing to file it within that period, as the Court stated in its order adopting the report and recommendation. (D.E. 9 at PageID 33 (citing Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019)).) Her request for an extension is likewise DENIED due to the tardiness of her objection and request. Her excuse that she “was never served” with the report and recommendation is invalid, as it was mailed to the address she submitted to the Court in her complaint. (See D.E. 1 at PageID 2.)

Again, this case is DISMISSED in accordance with the order adopting the report and recommendation. (D.E. 9.)

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of June 2026. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE