The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
GERARD CHRISTOPHER )
TCHEUMANI, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-02425-JTF-cgc
)
WHOLESCALE LLC, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gerard Christopher Tcheumani, Jr.’s, pro se complaint, filed
on June 28, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-15, the Magistrate Judge was
assigned to handle all pre-trial matters via order or report and recommendation as appropriate. The
Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) on August 11, 2022, advising
the Court to dismiss the complaint failure to submit a properly completed non-prisoner application
to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $400 civil filing fee. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed no
objections and his 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 Plaintiff’s claims DISMISSED 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)).
Here, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s original motion to proceed in forma
pauperis incorrectly attached a pro se prisoner short form and was supported by an affidavit that
did not provide the court with sufficient financial information with which to determine if he is
unable to pay the civil filing fee. Plaintiff was initially ordered to submit the correct form, add
additional information, or pay the filing fee within thirty days of the filing of his complaint, but
failed to do so. The Magistrate Judge noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the
district court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution in this situation. Plaintff failed to
file any objections to the R & R. After review of the R & R, the court finds no clear error in the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and ADOPTS its findings.
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 Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August 2022.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
United States District Judge