Gilmore v. Roane County et al
Plaintiff: Shasta Lashay Gilmore
Defendant: Mitch Gritsby, Richard Stooksbury, David Randle, Robert Cooker, Mike Carter, Mike Myers and Roane County, TN Gov't
Case Number: 3:2013cv00124
Filed: March 6, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Knoxville Office
County: Roane
Presiding Judge: David L Bunning
Presiding Judge: H Bruce Guyton
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 382 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 8/11/20. (JBR)
April 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 372 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [D. 367 ] is DENIED in its entirety, and this case will remain closed. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 4/10/18. (JBR)
September 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 325 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 292 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 9/21/17. (JBR)
April 12, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 236 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 179 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 4/12/16. (JBR)
April 5, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 229 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 220 Motion to Strike. Paragraphs 7 through 11 of Dr. Perklays Affidavit [Doc. 218-2] are STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 4/5/16. (JBR)
April 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 162 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the defendants' motion for summary judgment 99 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. It is denied with respect to the plaintiffs state law battery claims asserted against Officers Stooksbury and Grigsby. It is also denied with respect to the plaintiffs § 1983 claims asserted against all the defendants. The defendants motion for summary judgment is otherwise granted. The plaintiffs motion for leave to file a supplemental response [R. 147] is Denied as moot, and the plaintiff's motion to limit consideration [R. 148] is also Denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 4/9/15. (JBR) Modified text on 4/9/2015 (ADA).
December 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 145 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 108 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 119 Motion ; denying 120 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision; denying 123 Motion to Strike ; denying 133 Motion for Leave to File Document; denying 135 Motion for Sanctions; denying 138 Motion for Hearing; denying 140 Motion for Leave to File Document; denying 142 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 12/5/14. (JBR)
July 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER granting 89 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve counsel for the Defendants with full and complete responses to the interrogatories and requests for production served February 21, 2014, on or before August 1, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 7/11/14. (JBR)
June 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 90 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The Motion to Amend 85 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to refile as appropriate pursuant to any deadlines set by the District Judge. Additionally, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing 88 , which moves the Court to permit oral arguments on the Motion to Amend, is moot, and it is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 6/24/14. (JBR)
January 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER 1. The parties SHALL make their initial disclosures on or before February 7, 2014;1 and 2. The parties SHALL conduct their discovery conference as soon after that date as is practicable.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 01/14/2014. (KAW)
October 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER as follows: 1) Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 8 and 24 and Motion for Summary Judgment 48 as it pertains to Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against the Roane County government and the medic defendants is hereby GRANTED; 2) Defendants' Motion to Strike 41 is hereby DENIED; and Plaintiffs' Rule 41 Motion to allow her to file a limited nonsuit 54 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge David L Bunning on October 25, 2013. (AYB)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gilmore v. Roane County et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shasta Lashay Gilmore
Represented By: John M Wolfe, Jr
Represented By: John M Wolfe, Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mitch Gritsby
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Richard Stooksbury
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: David Randle
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Robert Cooker
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mike Carter
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mike Myers
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Roane County, TN Gov't
Represented By: Jeffrey R Thompson
Represented By: P Alexander Vogel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?