“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
How later courts described this case
- “It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
H.C. BROWN, JR. #578263, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NO. 3:22-cv-00754
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
No. 6) recommending dismissal this action without prejudice because H.C. Brown, Jr. has failed
to timely serve Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Two full months
have passed and neither party has filed an objection.
When neither party objects to the R&R within 14 days of service, the Court need not review
the matter independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Despite
this, the Court reviewed the R&R and agrees with its recommended disposition.
The R&R is APPROVED AND ADOPTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
This is a final order. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58 and close the file.
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY AD Cins JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE