Stevenson v. Helton et al
| Darryl Stevenson |
| Less Helton and Sheriff and Municipalities Marshall County |
| 1:2010cv00043 |
| May 21, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Columbia Office |
| Wayne |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| 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
59
ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 56 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and APPROVED, and defts' 48 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 12/19/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 21 ) is hereby ACCEPTED AND APPROVED, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 14 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/11/2011. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
21
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This matter is before the Court upon a document headed "Motion to Dismiss Filed on Behalf of Les Helton, Sheriff, and Marshall County," filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Docket No. 14. Defendants have fi led a supporting Memorandum of Law. Docket No. 15. Plaintiff has not filed a Response to the Motion. If Defendants were not properly served in this action, Plaintiff is not responsible for that circumstance. Thus, the instant Motion to Dismiss (Doc ket No. 14) should be DENIED. It is obvious that Defendants are aware of the instant lawsuit, but, as they argue, they do have the right to demand proper service. At the same time, however, Defendants may waive the defense of insufficiency of servic e of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5), 12 (h). Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall advise the Court in a filing whether they will waive service of process. If they choose not to waive service, they shall a dvise the Court in a filing how they wish to properly be served, and the Court will direct the Marshal to serve Defendants in such a manner. Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days after service of t his Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to fi le any response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/4/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (SEE R&R FOR FULL DETAILS)(af)
|
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.
