Opinion
3:21-cv-00574
07-15-2022
ANGEL WILLIAM VARGAS, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH JANOW, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ELI RICHARDSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 14), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
On May 26, 2022, two days after the Report and Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. (Doc. No. 15). The Notice was received by the Clerk of Court on June 2, 2022. (Id.). On June 22, 2022, the Clerk mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff's new address, as indicated on the docket in this matter. Plaintiff did not thereafter file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
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 Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, this matter is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.