Gallatin v. Pasco County Sherrif's Office et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DAVID E. GALLATIN, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:25-cv-01134
ORDER
On February 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
(Doc. No. 8) recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This
recommendation comes after the Magistrate Judge already ordered David E. Gallatin, II,
proceeding pro se, to file a completed Rule 7.1(a)(2) diversity disclosure statement no later than
December 12, 2025. 	(Doc. No. 7). 	To date, Gallatin has not complied with that order. 	In the
R&R, the Magistrate Judge also warned Gallatin that any objections to the R&R “must be filed
within fourteen (14) days of service.” (Doc. No. 8 at 4). Despite this specific warning, however,
Gallatin has not timely filed any timely objections to the R&R. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d
520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (explaining that failure to timely file objections to an R&R constitutes
forfeiture).
Where, as here, there are no “timely objection[s]” to the R&R, “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). The Court
has carefully reviewed the R&R and the record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Specifically, the Court agrees that Gallatin has failed to
Case 3:25-cv-01134 Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
state all parties’ citizenships in the Complaint, thereby failing to satisfy his burden to establish that
subject matter jurisdiction exists, and the case must be dismissed. (Doc. No. 8 at 2-3); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The Court also agrees that dismissal is warranted
on an alternative ground. Namely, there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the defendants
were served with process within the 90-day period required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(m), absent good cause shown by the plaintiff. (Doc. No. 8 at 3-4). Gallatin has not demonstrated
good cause for failing to serve the defendants with process in the required time period.
Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 8) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED, and this case is
DISMISSED. 	This is a final order. 	The Clerk of the Court shall enter a final judgment in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01134 Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>