Mason et al v. Tuggle et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
MICHAEL DARROW MASON,
THE LOGOS, and
THE LOGOS TRUST
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 2:25-cv-2774-MSN-tmp
THOMAS E. TUGGLE, II, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
11, “Report”) entered on December 5, 2025. The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be dismissed. On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Prime Soul Contract Notice of
Fiduciary Duty Respondent(s) Notice of Performance Deadline for Respondent(s)/Fiduciaries
Notice of Liquidation and Foreclosure” (ECF No. 12), which the Court construes as objections to
the Report. 	As set forth below, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, and the Report is
ADOPTED in its entirety.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). For dispositive matters, “[t]he
district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
Case 2:25-cv-02774-MSN-tmp Document 13 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the
evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the
magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.
Objections to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition “must be clear enough to enable
the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50
F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147 (stating that the purpose of the rule is
to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”). Each objection
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was
wrong, and how de novo review will obtain a different result on that particular issue. See Howard
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). A general objection, or one
that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the magistrate judge,
does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report and recommendation. Id. When an
objection 	reiterates 	the 	arguments 	presented 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge, 	the 	report 	and
recommendation should be reviewed for clear error. Verdone v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-
14178, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States, 898
F. Supp. 2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Dolgencorp,
LLC, 277 F. Supp. 3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).
Case 2:25-cv-02774-MSN-tmp Document 13 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal because Plaintiff failed to either pay the filing
fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and because Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.
(ECF No. 11 at PageID 62–63.)
Plaintiff’s objections do not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
72(b)(2). Rather than identifying factual or legal errors in the Chief Magistrate Judge’s analysis,
Plaintiff reiterates the same invented claims and procedures included in the Complaint. 	For
example, Plaintiff says that, “The Debtors must return energy back to The Source, the Creditor.
All energy has to return to its source. . .This is Universal Natural LAW.” (ECF No. 12 at PageID
65 (emphasis in original).) And that, “All previous soul contracts have been rescinding, cancelled,
and terminated.” (Id.) Neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor his objections establish that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over his unsubstantiated and frivolous claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 12) are OVERRULED. 	The Chief
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of January, 2026.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02774-MSN-tmp Document 13 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>