Travis v. Williams et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DATRIN TRAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SARAH-ANN WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:24-cv-00145
JUDGE RICHARDSON
ORDER
Pending before the Court1 is the report and recommendation (Doc. No. 55, “R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge, which recommends that the Court grant the “motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute” filed by Defendant Robert Gibson at Docket No. 39 (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 55 at 1).
More specifically, the R&R recommends that the Motion be granted and that this action, brought
by pro se Plaintiff, Datrin Travis, be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute. (Doc. No. 55 at 7). No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time for filing
objections has now expired.2
Absent any objection to the statement of facts (regarding the procedural history and
underlying circumstances of this case) set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, the Court
adopts that factual background in its entirety and includes it here for reference.
1 Herein, “the Court” refers to the undersigned District Judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge who
authored the R&R.
2 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file
any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff,
the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported
by mail. But even this extension does not help Plaintiff because the R&R was filed on December 26, 2025,
and as of January 16, 2026, Plaintiff has not filed any objections.
Case 3:24-cv-00145 Document 57 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

This pro se action brought by a former inmate of the Sumner County Jail in
Gallatin, Tennessee asserts claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for violations of
Plaintiff’s First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and state law medical
malpractice occurring while in the custody of the Davidson County Sherriff’s
Office Downtown Detention Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Docket No. 14. On
initial review, the Court dismissed a number of Plaintiff’s claims however, it
allowed claims against several of the Defendants to proceed. Docket No. 20.
On August 7, 2025, Defendant Robert Gipson filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution. Docket No. 39. The motion asserts that the Plaintiff has failed
to comply with the rules and orders of the Court regarding his address as evidenced
by the return of multiple mailings from the Clerk of Court as undeliverable. Id. The
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rules prevents the
Parties from advancing the litigation and that the Plaintiff has otherwise failed to
participate in this case.
The Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion to dismiss and on
September 12, 2025, the Court entered a show cause order requiring Plaintiff to
respond September 26, 2025, as to why his claims should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the order to the Plaintiff
but it [ ] was returned as undeliverable on October 21, 2025. Docket No. 52. On
October 15, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a notice updating his address with the Court.
Docket No. 50. On October 31, 2025, the Court entered a second show cause order
directing the Clerk of Court to send the Order to the Plaintiff’s newly filed address
and requiring the Plaintiff to respond to the show cause order no later than
November 21, 2025. Docket No. 54. To date, the Plaintiff has failed to respond to
the show cause order or the motion to dismiss.
(Doc. No. 55 at 1-2). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Motion should be granted.
No party has filed objections to the R&R, and the time to file objections with the Court has
passed, as explained in a footnote above.3
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive
pretrial 	matter, 	the 	district 	judge 	must 	review 	de 	novo 	any 	portion 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation to which a proper objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge
3 The docket reflects that the Clerk’s Office mailed the R&R to Plaintiff at the purported updated address
that Plaintiff had provided in Docket No. 50, but that it was returned as “undeliverable” and “unable to
forward.” (Doc. No. 56). So if the reason why Plaintiff did not file objections to the R&R is that he never
received a copy of the R&R, that appears to be a result of his failure to keep the Clerk’s Office properly
updated as to his address.
Case 3:24-cv-00145 Document 57 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, review further evidence, or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that a party
may file “specific written objections” to a report and recommendation, and Local Rule 72.02(a)
provides that such objections must be written and must state with particularity the specific portions
of the magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection
is made.
The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the matter. Id.; Hart v. Bee Prop. Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL
1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). A
district judge is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of a
report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt,
Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Sec., No. 3:18-CV-0010,
2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
Absent objection, the R&R (Doc. No. 55) is adopted and approved. Accordingly, the
Motion (Doc. No. 39) is GRANTED, and this action is dismissed without prejudice under Rule
41(b) for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and close the
file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-00145 Document 57 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>