Batts v. Metropolitan Sheriff's Department et al
| Antonio M. Batts |
| Metropolitan Sheriff's Department, Daron Hall, f/n/u Molding, Vernisten Dulin, Dan Weikal, f/n/u Dixon and Beth Gentry |
| 3:2015cv00077 |
| January 23, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Juliet E. Griffin |
| William J. Haynes |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
93
ORDER: Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 85) to deny Plaintiffs notices (Docket Entry Nos. 82 and 83), construed as motions for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Plaintiff has not filed an objection. After de novo review, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff's notices (Docket Entry Nos. 82 and 83), construed as motions for leave to file a supplemental complaint, are DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/8/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(jw)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER: After de novo review, the Report and Recommendation 32 is ADOPTED, and the Plaintiff's Motion 29 to supplement the complaint is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/25/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
|
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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
