# Brown

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · January 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11237338

## Case

- **Full name:** Jamie T. Brown v. Behavioral Health Group, Paris Treatment Center; Lisa Smith, Paris Treatment Center; Chelsea Joyce, Doctor; The Vistria Group; Frontenac; FNU Marshall, Doctor; Teddy Reeves; and Kathy LNU
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 7, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11237338

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________

JAMIE T. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 1:25-cv-01183-JDB-jay

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, Paris Treatment Center;
LISA SMITH, Paris Treatment Center;
CHELSEA JOYCE, Doctor;
THE VISTRIA GROUP;
FRONTENAC;
FNU MARSHALL, Doctor;
TEDDY REEVES; and
KATHY LNU,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE CASE

Before the Court is the complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Jamie T. Brown, proceeding pro se.
(Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.) By Administrative Order, this matter was referred to the United States
magistrate judge for management of all pretrial matters and for determination and/or report and
recommendation. Admin. Order 2013-05. After reviewing the allegations, Magistrate Judge Jon
A. York recommended dismissal. (D.E. 10 at PageID 48.) At the end of the Report and
Recommendation, Judge York notified Plaintiff that, if he disagreed with the recommendation, he
was required to file an objection or exception within fourteen days. (Id. at PageID 49.) He added
that “failure to file [an objection or exception] within fourteen (14) days may constitute a waiver
and/or forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and further appeal.” (Id. (emphasis omitted)).
Brown has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and the time
for doing so has expired. Consequently, he has forfeited his objections to the report and
recommendation. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kensu v.
Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, upon review of the record, the report and

recommendation (D.E. 10) is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s motion to amend (D.E. 9) is DENIED AS
MOOT, Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining order (D.E. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT, and the action
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of January 2026.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11237338. Public record. Not legal advice.