Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee adopts a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and grants a defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state medical-malpractice law, is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because the pro se plaintiff failed to maintain a current address and did not respond to court orders or the motion.
Holdings
- When no party files a timely objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court is not required to conduct de novo or other independent review of the unobjected-to portions and may adopt the recommendation.
- The action was properly dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court was required to conduct de novo or other independent review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation when no party filed objections.
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (4)
- Hart v. Bee Property Management, Inc., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019)(followed)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985)(followed)
- Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018)(followed)
- Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-CV-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…