govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_23-cv-02453-11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
 
KENNETH MERRITT, 
 
Plaintiff, 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
  
v. ) No. 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp 
 ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
WIPRO LIMITED, 
  
Defendant. 
 
 
  
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 
 
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by 
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on June 10, 2025. 
(ECF No. 101.)  
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge 
recommends that Defendant Wipro’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 
88) be granted, and that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with 
prejudice as a sanction for repeated noncompliance with court 
orders. (See ECF No. 101.) The deadline for objections was June 
24, 2025. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR 72.1(g)(2). 
(See ECF No. 101.)  
No party has filed an objection to the Report and 
Recommendation before the Court. “When no timely objection is 
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear 
error on the face of the record in order to accept the 
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp     Document 118     Filed 06/30/25     Page 1 of 3 
PageID <pageID>
2 
 
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. 
On clear-error review, the Report and Recommendation of the 
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 101) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 
 Although neither party has objected to the Report and 
Recommendation, Plaintiff has objected to two Orders filed by 
the Magistrate Judge before the Report and Recommendation. On 
June 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to: (1) the May 2, 
2025 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassign Case and for 
Reconsideration of Summary Judgment (ECF No. 86) ; and (2) the 
June 10, 2025 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (ECF 
No. 100). (See ECF Nos. 107–108.) Defendant has responded in 
opposition.1 (ECF Nos. 112–13.) Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 
108) to the Order denying his reassignment motion is untimely 
and therefore OVERRULED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).  
Plaintiff’s objection to the Order denying his recusal 
motion is timely but unpersuasive. On the record before the 
Court, there is no basis on which Chief United States Magistrate 
Judge Tu M. Pham’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 
28 U.S.C. § 455. Because Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 107)  
 
1  Plaintiff has filed a series of unauthorized replies. (See ECF Nos. 
115–117.) Plaintiff has been warned that Local Rule 7.2(c) requires 
leave of Court to file reply briefs, except on motions to dismiss or 
for summary judgment. (See ECF No. 86 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge has 
previously stricken an unauthorized reply brief from the record. (See 
id.) Plaintiff’s unauthorized reply briefs (ECF Nos. 115– 117) are 
stricken from the record. 
 
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp     Document 118     Filed 06/30/25     Page 2 of 3 
PageID <pageID>
3 
 
fails to establish that the Magistrate Judge’s Order is “clearly 
erroneous or is contrary to the law,” it is OVERRULED. See Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72(a). 
 On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the 
Magistrate Judge’s January 23, 2025 Order Granting Defendant’s 
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 55). (See ECF No. 110.) Defendant has 
responded in opposition. (See ECF No. 114.) Because the Court  
has adopted the Report and Recommendation recommending 
dismissal, Plaintiff’s pending motion (ECF No. 110) is DENIED AS 
MOOT. 
 On clear-error review, the June 10, 2025 Report and 
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 101) is ADOPTED 
in its entirety. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 88) 
is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
SO ORDERED this  30th  day of June, 2025. 
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. 
          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.  
          UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp     Document 118     Filed 06/30/25     Page 3 of 3 
PageID <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight