govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_25-cv-02756-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
JESSIE BLUE, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. Case No. 2:25-cv-02756-BCL-cgc 
 
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING 
ENGINEERS LOCAL 369, LESCO DESIGN 
AND MANUFACTURING, 
 
Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton’s Report and 
Recommendation, entered June 1, 2026. Doc. 41. The Report recommends that Defendant Lesco 
Design Manufacturing’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35) be granted, and that Defendant International 
Union of Operating Engineers Local 369’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) also be granted. The 
Magistrate also recommended the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining claims, at Plaintiff’s 
request. Plaintiff had fourteen days after being served to file objections. Plaintiff did not file 
objections. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by 
permitting the assignment of certain 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 non-dispositive PageID
<pageID>
2 
 
orders, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the 
order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 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 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 AND CONCLUSION 
 The Court has reviewed the Report and the entire record in this matter and finds no error 
in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. Moreover, 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. 
Doc. 41 at 10. Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed , so Plaintiff forfeited any 
challenge to the Report. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150. 
 Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41). 
Defendant Lesco Design Manufacturing’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 35 ) is GRANTED, and 
Defendant International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) 
is also GRANTED. Plaintiff’s remaining claims set forth in Count III are VOLUNTARILY 
DISMISSED. This matter is dismissed, as confirmed by a separate judgment. PageID
<pageID>
3 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2026. 
s/Brian C. Lea 
BRIAN C. LEA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight