Meener v. One Stop Housing, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
MUSSHUR MEENER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 2:25-cv-2528-MSN-cgc
ONE STOP HOUSING, LLC,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DISMISSING MATTER FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE,
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT,
AND DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND COPIES OF ORDER TO PLAINTIFF
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13,
“Report”) entered on January 14, 2026. On May 27, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff failed to timely respond, and the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF
No. 10) on September 29, 2025, directing Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why the Court
should not grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to Show
Cause. Accordingly, the Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
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
Case 2:25-cv-02528-MSN-cgc Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

2
district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
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-02528-MSN-cgc Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
<pageID>

3
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The Report was entered on January 14, 2026. It notified the parties that that any objections
or exceptions to the Report could be filed within 14 days after the party was served with a copy of
the Report. It also warned that failure to file objections or exceptions within 14 days may constitute
a waiver and/or forfeiture of any objections, exceptions, or further appeal. The 14-day period has
expired, and neither party has filed objections or exceptions. The Court has reviewed the Report
for clear error and finds none. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13)
is ADOPTED in its entirety, and this matter is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED
AS MOOT.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order and the Judgment to Plaintiff at the
following two addresses: (1) 947 S. Willett Street Memphis, TN 38114, and (2) 211 S. Sheppard
Drive Euless, TX 76040.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of February, 2026.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02528-MSN-cgc Document 14 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
<pageID>