# Weeks-Israel v. U.S. Army Recruiting Suffolk

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · October 8, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10436097

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** October 8, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10436097

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DAVID WEEKS-ISRAEL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NO. 3:18-cv-00317
)
U.S. ARMY RECRUITING SUFFOLK, ) JUDGE CAMPBELL
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN
Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
29), which was filed on June 13, 2019. Through the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) be granted and that
this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension to Follow
Court Recommendations. (Doc. No. 30).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any
portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections
to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id.
(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting
the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
If the Court construes Plaintiffs Motion for Extension to Follow Court Recommendations
(Doc. No. 30) as objections to the Report and Recommendation, the objections are timely. But
even so, Plaintiff's Motion does not lodge specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
or otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and fully considered Plaintiff's
Response (Doc. No. 30), the Court concludes that Plaintiffs objections are without merit and the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the
Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice. All other pending motions are denied as moot.
This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
It is so ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10436097. Public record. Not legal advice.