The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ROY LEE RUCKER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-02143-JTF-tmp
)
BRISTOL WEST INS., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ADOPTING CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Roy Lee Rucker’s pro-se complaint and motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, filed on March 4, 2022. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) On March 9, 2022, the Chief Magistrate
Judge entered an order directing pro-se Plaintiff to file a properly completed in forma pauperis
affidavit or pay the $402.00 civil filing fee within 30 days. (ECF No. 6.) Moreover, the Chief
Magistrate Judge’s Order notified pro-se Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in dismissal
of this action without further notice. The Court notes that pro-se Plaintiff’s compliance with the
Chief Magistrate Judge’s Order expired on April 9, 2022. After screening Plaintiff’s complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Chief Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation
(“R. & R.”) on May 5, 2022, advising the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s case without prejudice for
lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 7.) Pro-se Plaintiff’s objections
to the R&R were due on May 19, 2022. (Id.)
To date, pro-se Plaintiff has not complied with the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Order, filed no
objections to the R&R, and pro-se Plaintiff’s opportunity to do so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); LR 72.1(g)(2) (objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a
copy of the R. & R.). For the following reasons, the R. & R. should be ADOPTED, and pro-se
Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
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). 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). However, “[w]hen no timely objection
is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. The district
court is not required to review, and indeed “should adopt[,] the findings and rulings of the
Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Shelby Cty.
Sch., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
In the case at hand, the Court agrees with the Chief Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute the case.
(ECF No. 7.) If a plaintiff fails properly to prosecute an action, it can be dismissed either pursuant
to the Court’s inherent power to control its docket, or involuntarily under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). The Sixth Circuit held
that dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted where the Court affords a plaintiff a reasonable
period of time to comply with orders before the dismissal occurs. Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d
1254 (6th Cir. 1988); Sepia Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Toledo, 462 F. 2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1972) (per
curiam).
Under the circumstances, pro-se Plaintiff was advised that dismissal of this action would
ensue upon failure to comply with the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Order. Upon the Court’s review
of the record, pro-se Plaintiff has chosen not to comply. The R. & R. informed pro-se Plaintiff
that objections were due on May 19, 2022. As noted above, pro-se Plaintiff raised no objections
to the R. & R. and time to do so has passed. Accordingly, the Court dismisses pro-se Plaintiff’s
case without prejudice as an adjudication on the merits for lack of prosecution.
CONCLUSION
In the absence of any party objections and having satisfied itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and DISMISSES pro-se Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for lack of
prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2022.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE