Opinion
3:11-cv-01090
09-21-2021
ERNEST DODD, SR., Petitioner, v. CHERRY LINDAMOOD, Respondent.
ORDER
RICHARDSON, JUDGE.
On August 18, 2021, Magistrate Judge Frensley issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 77), recommending that the Court (1) deny and dismiss with prejudice Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 23), (2) deny a certificate of appealability to all claims, and (3) deny Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing as to all claims. Neither party objected to the R&R.
The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F.Supp.3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Id.
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and ADOPTS and APPROVES the R&R (Doc. No. 77). Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED to all claims. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED as to all claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.