Rousseau v. Government of Tennessee

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
PAMELA RENEE ROUSSEAU,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-cgc
JURY DEMAND
TENNESSEE,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
9, “Report”), entered December 5, 2025. 	The Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. (ECF No.
9 at PageID 17.) Plaintiff had fourteen (14) days after being served to file objections. Plaintiff
has not submitted any objections.
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
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
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 10 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

2
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.
DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the Report and the entire record in this matter and finds no clear
error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. The Magistrate Judge warned that:
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED
WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF
THE 	REPORT. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1)(C). 	FAILURE 	TO 	FILE 	SAID
OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY
CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY
TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL.
(ECF No. 9 at PageID 21.) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) in
its entirety. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of January, 2026.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02949-MSN-tmp Document 10 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>