McClain v. Strada et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JOHNNY EUGENE MCCLAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER FRANK STRADA,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:25-cv-000557
ORDER
On July 22, 2026, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R July
22”) recommending, that among other things, that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for the
appointment of counsel. 	(Doc. No. 126). 	The Magistrate Judge cited in support of her
recommendation the December 2, 2025 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel. 	(Doc. No. 66). 	The Magistrate Judge’s two decisions denying McClain’s motions for
appointment of counsel cited and explained that McClain does not satisfy the Supreme Court’s
standard of “exceptional circumstances.” (Doc. No. 66 at 1). McClain has filed a timely motion
for review of the R&R July 22.
Title 28 United States Code section 636(b)(1)(A), provides, in part, that this Court can
reverse a magistrate judge’s order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The R&R July 22
applied the correct legal standard that appointment of counsel for a pro se litigant must be based
upon “exceptional circumstances.” 	The Magistrate Judge’s application of that standard to
McClain’s circumstances was not clearly erroneous. His circumstances are typical of litigants in
custody and his filings show his ability to marshal legal authority to make his arguments. (Doc.
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 134 Filed 08/11/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
No. 130 at 3). McClain’s custody status and physical limitation have not hindered his ability to
make filings timely or marshal facts to support his position.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R July 22 is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary
to law. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
On July 24, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R July
24”) recommending that the Court deny Johnny Eugene McClain’s motion for preliminary
injunction. (Doc. No. 128). The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that any objections to the
R&R July 24 must be filed within 14 days of service. (Id. at 7). When service is made by mail,
three additional days are added to the prescribed period. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 	The deadline to
object was August 10, 2026. Neither party filed any objections.
Where, as here, there are no “timely objection[s]” to the R&R July 24, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citations
omitted); see also Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D.
Tenn. 2018) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)) (“The district court is not required
to 	review—under 	a 	de 	novo 	or 	any 	other 	standard—those 	aspects 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation to which no objection is made.”).
Having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court finds no clear error. The R&R July 24 (Doc.
No. 128) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No.
91 and 96) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 134 Filed 08/11/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>