Thigpen v. U-Haul International, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
CARRIE LOUISE THIGPEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-1091-STA-jay
)
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ORDER ON APPELLATE ISSUES
______________________________________________________________________________
On 	January 	5, 	2026, 	the 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	issued 	a 	report 	and
recommendation (ECF No. 5) that the Court dismiss this case for Plaintiff Carrie Louise Thigpen’s
failure to state a claim for relief. Thigpen brings claims for the alleged violation of her civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff had 14 days from the service of the Magistrate Judge’s report in
which to file objections. Plaintiff has not objected to the report and its recommended conclusions
of law, and the time to object has now expired.
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by
permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70
(1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). The United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee adopted Administrative Order 2013-05 for
this very purpose, referring all cases filed by non-prisoner plaintiffs to a United States Magistrate
Judge for management of all pretrial matters. 	The Magistrate Judge has recommended the
Case 1:25-cv-01091-STA-jay Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
dismissal of Plaintiff’s case sua sponte for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). While “a district judge must determine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),
the district court is not required to review (under a de novo or any other standard) “any issue that
is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court
should adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is
filed. Id. at 151.
In the absence of any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court
hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The Court DISMISSES the
case because Plaintiff’s pleading fails to state a claim for relief. The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment.
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Court should authorize Plaintiff to appeal this
decision in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. “‘Good faith’ has
been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a nonfrivolous question for review.” Cruz v.
Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). The good faith standard is an objective
one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The same considerations that lead the
Court to dismiss this case, Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and her failure to make any timely
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, also compel the conclusion that
an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff
may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
Case 1:25-cv-01091-STA-jay Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decisions in McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612–13 (6th Cir. 1997) and Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105
F.3d 274, 276 (6th Cir. 1997) apply to any appeal filed by Plaintiff in this case. If Plaintiff files a
notice of appeal, he must pay the entire $605 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1917.
By filing a notice of appeal, Plaintiff becomes liable for the full amount of the filing fee, regardless
of the subsequent progress of the appeal. The entire filing fee must be paid within thirty (30) days
of the filing of the notice of appeal. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the above assessment of the
appellate filing fee within thirty (30) days4 of the filing of the notice of appeal or the entry of this
order, whichever occurred later, the Court will notify the Sixth Circuit, which will dismiss the
appeal. If the appeal is dismissed, it will not be reinstated once the fee is paid. McGore, 114 F.3d
at 610.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: February 10, 2026
4 The district court may extend this deadline one time by thirty (30) days if the motion to
extend is filed before the expiration of the original deadline. McGore, 114 F.3d at 610.
Case 1:25-cv-01091-STA-jay Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>