Martin v. Putman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ERVIN D. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC PUTMAN et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:24-cv-00711
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by former Magistrate Judge Alistair
Newbern (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 30) recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
Court’s orders. 	The R&R also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s pending motions
requesting additional time to pursue his claims. (Doc. Nos. 28, 29). The R&R, issued on January
2, 2026, notified Plaintiff that any objections must be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 38 at
8). Plaintiff 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. Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. No. 30) in its entirety. 	This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
Case 3:24-cv-00711 Document 31 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
PREJUDICE. The pending motions (Doc. Nos. 28 and 29) are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court
is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-00711 Document 31 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>