Kuykendall v. Lee et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
TYLER SCOTT KUYKENDALL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-1056-STA-jay
)
BILL LEE, Governor, State of Tennessee; 	)
NEIL THOMPSON, District Attorney; and 	)
CHAD EDWARDS, Mayor, Huntingdon, 	)
Tennessee, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND
______________________________________________________________________________
On 	December 	16, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued 	a report and
recommendation (ECF No. 7) that the Court dismiss the initial Pro Se Complaint for the failure to
state a claim for relief. Plaintiff Tyler Scott Kuykendall filed a Pro Se Complaint on February 24,
2025. Kuykendall used the official form for a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The gravamen of the pleading is that Kuykendall who utilizes a wheelchair was
denied access to District Attorney’s Office in Huntingdon, Tennessee. Kuykendall demands that
Defendants construct a wheelchair accessible ramp at the Office and erect a memorial to the
victims of police brutality. Kuykendall also seeks an award of $500,000 in damages for emotional
distress and PTSD. 	The Pro Se Complaint names Governor Bill Lee, District Attorney Neil
Thompson, and Mayor Chad Edwards as Defendants.
The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Court dismiss the Pro Se Complaint.
Kuykendall has failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the ADA
Case 1:25-cv-01056-STA-jay Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
does not allow suits against public officials in their official capacity. The Magistrate Judge has
recommended dismissal but with leave for Kuykendall to amend his pleadings to allege his ADA
claim against the proper public entity.
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
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.
Kuykendall had 14 days from the service of the Magistrate Judge’s report in which to file
objections. To date, Kuykendall has not objected, and the time to do so has expired.
Kuykendall having raised no objection to the report and recommendation, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The Court DISMISSES the Pro Se
Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court will grant Kuykendall leave to amend his
pleadings to assert an ADA claim against the proper public entity, not an individual public official.
Case 1:25-cv-01056-STA-jay Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
Kuykendall’s amended pleading is due within 28 days of the entry of this order. Failure to file the
amended pleading (or a motion showing good cause for an extension of the filing deadline) will
result in the dismissal of the case without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: January 6, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-01056-STA-jay Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>