Opinion
2:23-CV-34
05-16-2023
CODY LEE FILLERS, Plaintiff, v. GREENEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CYNTHIA RICHARDSON WYRICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed a Complaint [Doc. 2] in this matter alleging that two police departments, certain divisions of the Tennessee state government, and eight individual officers violated his constitutional rights and Tennessee law when they arrested and prosecuted him. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed with this action without prepayment of fees. [Doc. 1]. On April 27, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 4]. The Court then undertook the screening process required when litigants are granted permission to proceed without prepayment of fees. In doing so, the Court found that Plaintiff did not provide a sufficient factual basis for his claims against the police departments, and that even if he did, the claims would be time-barred; that divisions of the state government were immune from suit; and that Plaintiff's claims against the individual officers were time-barred. Thus, the Court recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint.
Almost immediately after the Court's Order and Report and Recommendation [Doc. 4] was filed, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. 5]. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the same facts from the night of his arrest and subsequent prosecution, merely rewording the descriptions of some events and at other times copying and pasting portions of his original complaint.
Because Plaintiff did not provide any new facts or arguments which would be outcomedeterminative, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 5] be DISMISSED with prejudice. This matter is to be presented to the District Judge pursuant to this Report and Recommendation under the authority of Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 195 F.2d 260, 263 (6th Cir. 1990) wherein the Court states that such matters proceed automatically to a district judge for examination of the complaint after a magistrate judge has granted the petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
Any objections to this report and recommendation must be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of this recommended disposition on the objecting party. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). Failure to file objections within the time specified waives the right to review by the District Court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); see United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (providing the failure to file objections in compliance with the time period waives the right to appeal the District Court's order). The District Court need not provide de novo review where objections to this report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive, or general. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).