Jefferson v. UPS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
JERRICA L. JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:25-cv-02121-SHL-cgc	v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), filed September 26, 2025. (ECF No. 19.) In the R&R, Judge
Claxton recommends that pro se Plaintiff Jerrica L. Jefferson’s complaint be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Id. at PageID 59.)
On May 29, 2025, Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 12.) Jefferson has yet to respond to the motion. On September 10, 2025, when there
was no response within the time dictated by the rules, an order to show cause (ECF No. 17) was
entered directing Jefferson to show cause why the Court should not grant Defendant’s motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 19 at PageID 57.) The show cause order was served on Jefferson at her email
address and physical address (by Certified Mail, return receipt requested), as previously
provided. (Id. at PageID 57–58.) The letter was returned as undeliverable, although Jefferson
had been directed by the Court to “promptly notify the Clerk of any change of address or
whereabouts” (ECF No. 8 at PageID 26), but no update has been provided. (ECF No. 19 at
PageID 58.) Altogether, “[t]here has been no meaningful activity by Plaintiff since the
Case 2:25-cv-02121-SHL-cgc Document 21 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

2
Complaint was filed on February 3, 2025.” (Id.) Thus, the R&R recommends dismissal. (Id. at
PageID 59.)
A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for dismissal of a complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2017). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings
of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear
error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Jefferson’s deadline to object to the R&R was October 10, and no objection was filed.
The Court attempted to obtain a response, but, apparently, Jefferson has moved and not provided
updated contact information. The Court has reviewed the R&R in its entirety for clear error and
discerns none. The R&R properly describes Jefferson’s failure to prosecute the case, and the
Court agrees that the matter should be dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS
the R&R and DISMISSES the complaint WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of January, 2026.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02121-SHL-cgc Document 21 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>