Harold V. Hatfield v. Jared Efl er, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE HAROLD V. HATFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-292 v. ) ) Judge Atchley JARED EFLER, et al., ) ) Magistrate Judge Poplin Defendants. ) ORDER On June 5, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin filed a Report and Recommendation [Doc. 14] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Rules of this Court. After screening the Amended Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Magistrate Judge Poplin recommended that the Amended Complaint [Doc. 13] be dismissed in its entirety. [Doc. 14 at 3]. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.1 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation [Id.], 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. 14]. Thus, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. /s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr. CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Magistrate Judge Poplin advised that the parties had fourteen days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any right to appeal. [Doc. 14 at 9 n.4); 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.”).