Opinion
NO. 3:18-cv-01388
07-23-2020
RICHARD CURTIS ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 31), to which no Objections have been filed.
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., Case 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, Case 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.
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. Consequently, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED as moot. This Order shall constitute final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE