Mitchell v. Hininger et al
| Robert L. Mitchell |
| Damon Hininger, C.C.A., Cherry Lindamood, Daniel Pritchard and Angela Steadman |
| 1:2010cv00105 |
| November 8, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Columbia Office |
| Wayne |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
185
MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 2/6/2013. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
149
ORDER granting 148 Motion to permit plaintiff to participate in the telephone conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/10/2012. (hb)
|
|
Filing
125
ORDER: Pltf's 117 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED only insofaras he may increase the amount of damages he seeks. Pltf's 122 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order is GRANTED; the discovery dealine is reset to 4/9/12, and the dispositive motions deadline to 4/30/12, with responses due by 5/28/12 and replies by 6/4/12. Deft's 120 Motion to Quash is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 3/14/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 88 Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, defts' 81 Motion for Involuntary Dismissal is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 11/23/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)
|
|
Filing
88
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends defts' 81 MOTION for Involuntary Dismissal be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 11/3/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Motion, the Magistrate Judge's Order and the file. Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to Magistrate Judge's Order 65 is DENIED. The Court finds that the Order of the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Order of the Magistrate Judge 59 is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/19/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER: If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal the Magistrate Judge's order 71 , he should do so within 14 days of the entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/17/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
71
ORDER: Motion requesting subpoenas duces tecum for records of Drs. Limbird, Neblett and Henessey 29 is termed as Pending inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge in 32 directed that these subpoenas be issued when the Plaintiff had returned a HIPAA releas e to the Defendant. MOtion to issue subpoenas duces tecum to the Nashville General Hospital and again for Dr. Thomas Limbird 37 is termed as pending inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge in 42 again provided these subpoenas would not issue until such time as he was notified the completed HIPAA release had been executed by the Plaintiff and received by the Defendants. The Clerk should transmit a copy of the order to Judge Campbell to the extent the Plaintiff seeks a review of this order by the Mag istrate Judge's. the Defendants filed two motions concerning the HIPAA release. The first 68 is TERMINATED as moot, in view of the filing of an amended motion to compel 70 , this amended motion is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/11/11.(xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER: Telephone Conference held on 7/14/2011. The Magistrate Judge had hoped that the Plaintiff would provide the HIPAA releases so that both parties could receive the Plaintiff's medical records and the doctors would not be saddled with provid ing records to the parties at separate times. The District Judge has now affirmed the Magistrate Judge's decision. If the Plaintiff will promptly sign the release the medical records can be produced to both sides. In case the Plaintiff does not now have the proper forms the Defendant should send him new ones at once. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/19/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion in Objection to Magistrate Judges Pretrial 47 is DENIED. The Court finds that the Order of the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Order of the Magistrate Judge 42 is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 7/15/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER: The Magistrate Judge will not issue subpoenas until such time as the Magistrate Judge is notified that completed HIPAA releases have been executed and received by the Defendants. The Defendants are directed to notify the Magistrate Judge immediately when they receive properly executed releases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 6/7/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
22
SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 7/8/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 8/8/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 3/7/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED 30 days from the date of entry of this order on the docket in which to either pay the full filing fee ($350) or submit a current application to proceed in forma pauperis along with the aforementioned certified statement from the custodian of his inmate trust account. The Clerk shall send the plaintiff a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 11/12/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(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.
