UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GREENEVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
) 2:18-CV-00054-DCLC-CRW
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RICKY A.W. CURTIS,
)
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 25] which recommends the parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Consent
Order [Doc. 24] be granted and the Consent Order be adopted, except that Paragraph 1 of the
Consent Order be modified to reflect that a hearing was held during which the parties advised the
magistrate judge of their request that a Consent Order be entered to initially address the United
States’ Motion [Doc. 16] for order to show cause and to compel discovery responses. The
magistrate judge further recommends that any relief sought in the motion [Doc. 16] for order to
show cause and to compel discovery responses but not specifically addressed by the proposed
Consent Order be held in abeyance for 90 days, and that at the conclusion of the 90-day period,
the parties be required to file a joint status report notifying the Court whether any issues remain
for the court to address.
While it appears the Consent Order adequately resolves the pending dispute between the
parties, no objections have been filed to the R&R, which advised that objections to it must be filed
within 14 days and that failure to do so would forfeit any right to appeal. [Doc. 25, pg. 4
n.1]; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (“It does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”). More than 14 days have passed, and no objection has been filed.
Having carefully reviewed the record and with no objections having been raised, the Court
therefore ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). For the reasons in the report and recommendation,
which the Court adopts and incorporates into this Order, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Consent Order [Doc. 24] is GRANTED and the
Consent Order is adopted, except that Paragraph 1 of the Consent Order is modified to
reflect that a hearing was held during which the parties advised the magistrate judge of
their request that a Consent Order be entered to initially address the United States’
Motion [Doc. 16] for order to show cause and to compel discovery responses; and
2. Any relief sought in the motion [Doc. 16] for order to show cause and to compel
discovery responses but not specifically addressed by the proposed Consent Order shall
be HELD IN ABEYANCE for 90 days from the date of this Order, and at the
conclusion of the 90-day period, the parties are required to file a joint status report
notifying the Court whether any issues remain for the Court to address.
SO ORDERED:
s/ Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.