Phippen v. Rutherford County Adult Detention Center et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JERRY PHIPPEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY,
RUDD MEDICAL (SERVICES),
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:24-cv-00781
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Barbara D.
Holmes (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 38) recommending that the Court grant Rutherford County and
Rudd Medical (Services) unopposed Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 24 and 33).
The R&R, issued on January 5, 2026, notified pro se Plaintiff, Jerry Phippen, that any objections
must be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 38). He failed to timely file objections.
Because Plaintiff lodged no objections to the R&R, the Court reviews it for clear error
only. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note of 1983 (“When no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.”). And the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. Judge Holmes carefully
applied the unrebutted factual record to the governing law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the
R&R (Doc. No. 38) in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Case 3:24-cv-00781 Document 39 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
(Doc. No. 33). This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-00781 Document 39 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>