# Pelly

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · January 8, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11238802

## Case

- **Full name:** Brandon Pelly v. Beal Law Office
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 8, 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/11238802

## Opinion text

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

BRANDON PELLY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:25-cv-01270-JDB-jay

BEAL LAW OFFICE,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________

The Plaintiff, Brandon Pelly, initiated this pro se action on November 24, 2025, against the
Beal Law Office pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket Entry ("D.E.") 1.) His request to proceed
in forma pauperis was granted the following day. (D.E. 6.) United States Magistrate Judge Jon
A. York screened the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and, on November
25, 2025, issued a report and recommendation (the “R&R”) that the complaint be dismissed with
prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (D.E. 7.)
In the R&R, Judge York advised the Plaintiff that any objections thereto must be filed within
fourteen days after service of the report. Within that period, Pelly filed no objections to the R&R
but, rather, filed an amended complaint against the same defendant. (D.E. 8.) Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint on December 29, 2025. (D.E. 9.)
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs a district judge to “determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LR 72.1(g)(2). “Parties cannot
raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented before the
magistrate judge’s . . . R&R.” Meddaugh v. Gateway Fin. Serv., 601 F. Supp. 3d 210, 213 (E.D.
Mich. 2022) (quoting Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Only specific written objections to the [m]agistrate [j]udge's proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions are considered proper for the district court’s determination.”

Tulis v. Orange, 686 F. Supp. 3d 701, 704-05 (M.D. Tenn. 2023) (internal quotation marks
omitted), aff’d 2024 WL 4117021 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024). With respect to matters to which there
has been no specific objection, the district court need not engage in a review under a de novo or
any other standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Where there is no objection, the
report and recommendation should be adopted by the district court. Id. at 151; Brown v. Bd. of
Educ. of Shelby Cty. Sch., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014).
In light of the caselaw set forth above, this Court cannot consider any new issues raised in
an amended pleading that were not before Judge York prior to his issuance of the R&R. Absent
proper objections, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation and DISMISSES this matter

WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of January 2026.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11238802. Public record. Not legal advice.