United States v. Eastwood ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at KNOXVILLE UNITED STATES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 3:16-cv-577 v. ) ) Judge Mattice EDWARD EASTWOOD, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Corker ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER On June 20, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker filed his Report and Recommendation, [Doc. 61], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Magistrate Judge Corker recommended that the the United States’ Motion for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property and Directing Distribution of Sale Proceeds [Doc. 57] be granted and the United States’ Proposed Order [Doc. 60-1] be adopted. No party has appeared or otherwise objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, upon independent review the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Corker’s well-reasoned recommendation. Accordingly, • The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Corker’s conclusions of law and recommendations [Doc. 61], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); • The United States’ Motion for Order Confirming Sale of Property and Directing Distribution of Sale Proceeds is hereby GRANTED; and 1 Magistrate Judge Corker specifically advised that any objections to his Report and Recommendation “must be filed within fourteen (14) days” of its entry. [Doc. 61 at 2 n.1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). • An order confirming the sale of real property and distributing sale proceeds shall be entered separately. SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2019. /s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._____ HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE