Woodruff v. Melton et al
Plaintiff: Vincent D. Woodruff
Defendant: W. B. Melton, Shannon Harvey, John McCloud and Debbie Deck
Case Number: 2:2013cv00085
Filed: September 20, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Cookeville Office
County: Overton
Presiding Judge: Joe Brown
Presiding Judge: Kevin H. Sharp
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 105 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 99 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendant Debbie Deck's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. [ 81]) is hereby GRANTED; (3) Defendants' [W.B. Melton and Shannon Harvey] Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 87 ) is hereby GRANTED; (4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (5) This dismissal shall count as a STRIKE unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (6) The Court hereby certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/30/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
July 8, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 99 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons explained above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that: 1) the motions for summary judgment presently before the court (Docs. 81 and 87 ) be GRANTED; 2) this action 1 be dismissed against the moving parties for failure to exhaust and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 3) this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 4) dismissal of this action COUNT AS A STRIKE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g); 5) acceptance and adoption o f this R&R constitute the FINAL JUDGMENT in this action; 6) any appeal NOT BE CERTIFIED as taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); 7) any pending motions be TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/8/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
October 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 74 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendant John McCloud's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 52 ) is hereby GRANTED; and (3) The Court hereby certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/10/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb) Modified text on 10/10/2014 (hb).
August 12, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 74 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 52 MOTION to Dismiss. For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion to dismiss be GRANTED and that all claims against Defendant McCloud be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that any appeal from the dismissal of this Defendant not be recommended as taken in good faith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/12/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
December 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER denying 20 Motion for Evidentiary Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 12/12/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
October 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/18/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Woodruff v. Melton et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Vincent D. Woodruff
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: W. B. Melton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Shannon Harvey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John McCloud
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Debbie Deck
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?