IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
Gerald Kiner,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:25-cv-02987-BCL-tmp
City of Memphis, Memphis, Light Gas & Water
Division (MLGW), John Does (1-10),
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for class certification. Doc. 10. On May 15,
2026, Chief Magistrate Judge Tu Pham1 issued a Report and Recommendation that the Motion
should be denied. Doc. 95. The deadline to file objections has passed and Defendant did not file
an objection.
A United States District Court Judge may designate a United States Magistrate Judge to
submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for disposition by the District Judge of
certain motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The District Judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” and “shall make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The district court is not required to review—
1 Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate.
under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and recommendation to which
no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Based upon the lack of any objection, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 95) in full. Accordingly, the Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 10) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2026.
s/ Brian C. Lea
BRIAN C. LEA
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.