Webster v. Parker et al
| Javon Webster |
| Tony Parker, Cherry Lindamood, SCCC Pevahouse Disciplinary, Geneva Roberts, SCCC, Ronda Staggs, Leigh Staggs, (f/n/u) Paden, Jessica McElroy, Corizon Medical Services, (f/n/u) Coble, (f/n/u) Frank, (f/n/u) McClain and Candice Murphy |
| 1:2017cv00030 |
| March 29, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Columbia Office |
| Davidson |
| Waverly D. Crenshaw |
| 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
116
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 104 ) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No . 70 ) is GRANTED. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 2/28/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(vh)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29 ) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, construed as timely objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 31 ), is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Reco nsideration of the Courts October 31, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 24 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add 2 Additional Defendants (Doc. No. 25 ) is DENIED. This case is RETURNED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/26/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)
|
|
Filing
29
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 25 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, filed by Javon Webster, 24 MOTION for Reconsideration. For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that both these motions be denied. Under Rule 72 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has 14 days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have 14 days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 5/15/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
|
|
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Plaintiff's Applications 5 , 11 and 13 are GRANTED. The Plaintiff is herewith ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350. Motions 4 , 10 and 12 to Amend Complaint are Denied as MOOT. Plaintiff's fourth Mo tion ( 14 ) to amend is DENIED. Motions for subpoena duces tecum ( 2 ), emergency injunctive relief ( 9 ) and a preliminary injunction ( 15 ) are DENIED. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff will complete the service packet and return it to the Clerk's Office within (21) days of the date of receipt of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/31/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail including service packet.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
|
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
- 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.
