The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
KENDARION JENNINGS, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:21-cv-02468-JTF-tmp
)
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Santander Consumer USA for
federal violations of consumer rights. (ECF No. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed a pro se
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) On July 16, 2021, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s Motion and on September 21, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). (ECF Nos. 6 & 7.) Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and
the time to file such objections has passed. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint
DISMISSED.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge provides, and this Court adopts and
incorporates the proposed findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 7, 1-3.) As noted, Plaintiff failed
to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact.
II. 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, 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.
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, including the Complaint and the Report
and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to file any
objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Therefore, after a full de novo review
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, including the “Proposed Findings of Fact”
and the “Proposed Conclusions of Law”, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of February 2022.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
United States District Judge