Williamson v. Baxter et al
Plaintiff: |
Marlin Williamson |
Defendant: |
John Baxter, Wendy Ashe, Robert Coble, f/n/u Berry, f/n/u Orton and f/n/u Petty |
Case Number: |
1:2014cv00101 |
Filed: |
August 11, 2014 |
Court: |
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
Office: |
Columbia Office |
County: |
Wayne |
Presiding Judge: |
William J. Haynes |
Nature of Suit: |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Jury Demanded By: |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
January 29, 2016 |
Filing
90
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 81) to dismiss Defendant Wendy Ashe for Plaintiff's failure to file with the Court a written explanation sho wing cause for his failure to serve Defendant Wendy Ashe within 120 days after the filing of the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff has not filed an objection. After de novo review, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff's claimsagainst Defendant Wendy Ashe are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/28/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(eh)
|
December 10, 2015 |
Filing
81
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned previously entered an Order on October 29, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 75), requiring Plaintiff to file with the Court a written explanation showing cause for his failure to serve Defendant Wendy Ashe within 12 0 days after the filing of the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff did have the summons issued to Defendant by the Clerks Office, however, on April 22, 2015, the summons was returned unexecuted. Docket No. 34. More than six (6) months have passed, and there is no indication the defendant was ever served. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that this defendant be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 12/10/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
October 14, 2015 |
Filing
71
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 63) to grant Defendant John Baxter's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 51). Plaintiff has not filed an obj ection. After de novo review, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Defendant John Baxter's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 51 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against this Defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 10/13/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(eh)
|
September 15, 2015 |
Filing
63
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned recommends that Defendant Baxter's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 51) be GRANTED, that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Baxter be DISMISSED, and that Defendant Baxter be TERMINATED as a Defendant in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 9/15/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
August 14, 2014 |
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 8/13/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh) Modified on 8/14/2014 (eh).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
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?