“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’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 judge’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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SHENTASIA JOHNSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 3:24-cv-70
v. )
) Judge Atchley
)
TENNESSEE STATE BOARD OF ) Magistrate Judge McCook
EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
On September 16, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook filed a Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 11] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Rules of this Court. For reasons
that follow, the R&R will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and this action will be DISMISSED.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (the “PLRA”), the Court must
screen actions filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. If at any time the Court determines
such an action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court must dismiss the action. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Judge McCook screened the Complaint [Doc. 2] pursuant to the PLRA and
recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and, as to claims against the
State of Tennessee, because it is immune from suit.
Plaintiff was advised that she had 14 days to object to the Report and Recommendation
and that failure to do so would forfeit any right to appeal. [Doc. 11 at 8 n.4]; see Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress
intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under
a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). The objection
period has expired and Plaintiff has not made any further filings.
The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the
record, and agrees with Magistrate Judge McCook’s well-reasoned conclusions. After
consideration, Judge McCook also declined to permit amendment of the complaint since Plaintiff’s
claims fail as a matter of law. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to object to the R&R or otherwise seek
to amend, the undersigned agrees that granting Plaintiff leave to amend is not warranted.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge McCook’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11]. This action
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
A separate judgment shall enter.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Charles E. Atchley, Jr.
CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE