The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ERIQUE JERMAINE RICHARDSON )
(EL BEY), )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:21-cv-02445-JTF-tmp
)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, filed on March 26, 2021. (ECF No. 1.)
On July 2, 2021, the Chief Magistrate Judge entered an Order Directing Plaintiff to Pay the Full
Civil Filing Fee or File an In Forma Pauperis Affidavit. (ECF No. 6.) Upon Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with that order, the Chief Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
FINDINGS OF FACT
As explained in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee
or filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. (ECF No. 7.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts
by permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates.” United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court, except various dispositive motions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Regarding those excepted dispositive motions, magistrate judges may
still hear and submit to the district court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Upon hearing a pending matter, “the magistrate judge must
enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(1); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). Any party who
disagrees with a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation may file written objections
to the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The standard of review that is applied by the district court depends on the nature of the
matter considered by the magistrate judge. See Baker, 67 F. App’x at 310 (citations omitted).
Upon review, the district court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D.
Tenn. 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court “may also receive evidence or recommit
the matter to the [m]agistrate [j]udge with instructions.” Moses v. Gardner, No. 2:14-cv-2706-
SHL-dkv, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015).
Usually, the district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard.
However, a district court is not required to review “a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). A district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the
magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed. Brown, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 674.
ANALYSIS
The Report and Recommendation determined that due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the civil
filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s Complaint should
be dismissed. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation, and to
date, has not paid the filing fee or applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly,
the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Upon de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2021.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE