Rivers v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
LAKENDRA MARIE RIVERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LASHONDA WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-cv-288
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru
ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru’s report and recommendation
that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice and deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) as moot with no filing fee assessed. (Doc. 8, at 1.) Plaintiff Lakendra
Marie Rivers, proceeding pro se, filed this action on September 8, 2025, (see Doc. 1), while a
report and recommendation in a previous, related case1 (“Rivers I”) was still pending. (Doc. 8, at
3.)
In his report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dumitru found that Plaintiff “failed
to state a proper claim over which this Court has jurisdiction.” (Id. at 1.) Specifically, the report
notes that Plaintiff’s allegations involve “vague, disjointed sentence fragments” regarding the
reduction or termination of her Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (See id. at 3–4.)
Magistrate Judge Dumitru found that the Court lacks jurisdiction over review Plaintiff’s
terminated SSI benefits because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as
1 See Lakendra Marie Rivers v. The Company Lab, 1:25-cv-273-TRM-MJD (E.D. Tenn., filed
Aug. 19, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-00288-TRM-MJD Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
#: <pageID>

required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (See id. at 4–5 (citing Wood v. Kijakazi,
No. 1:20-CV-323-TAV-CHS, 2023 WL 2664738, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2023); Gray v.
Berryhill, No. 12-12433, 2017 WL 4778712, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2017)).
Furthermore, the report found that Plaintiff also failed to include any supporting facts for
potential tort claims against Defendant Lashonda Williams and noted that the instant action may
be barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s prior related lawsuit.
(Id. at 5.) Magistrate Judge Dumitru concluded that “justice would not be served by granting
Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint” due to these defects. (Id.)
Magistrate Judge Dumitru advised the parties that any objections must be filed within
fourteen days. (See id. at 6 n.3.) No party has filed an objection, and the time for doing so has
passed.
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dumitru’s well-reasoned conclusions, and it
hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS his report and recommendation (Doc. 8). It is hereby
ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety. Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot. No filing fee shall be assessed in
this case, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Additionally, Plaintiff is further
FOREWARNED that the continued filing of cases that fail to pass 28 U.S.C. § 1915 screening
may result in her being enjoined from filing future pleadings without prior Court permission.2
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 (See Doc. 8, at 6 (citing Smith v. Akron City Council, Nos. 98-3389, 98-3465, 1999 WL 183409,
at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 16, 1999) (“A district court has the authority to issue an injunctive order to
prevent prolific litigants from filing leadings without first obtaining court approval to do so.”)).)
Case 1:25-cv-00288-TRM-MJD Document 9 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
#: <pageID>