Newberry v. Melton et al
Plaintiff: Jack Newberry
Defendant: W.B. Melton, Shannon Harvey, Debbie Deck, Ashley Deck and Rodney Phillips
Case Number: 2:2014cv00024
Filed: February 27, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Cookeville Office
County: Overton
Presiding Judge: Kevin H. Sharp
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
April 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 90 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint: As of the date of the filing of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's previous Order. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that Defendant Overton County, Tennessee be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 4/6/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
April 4, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having conducted a de novo review in accordance with Rule 72, the Court will accept the disposition set forth in the R & R. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R (Docket No. 83 ) is here by ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 46 as to Defendants Phillips, Harvey, and Melton in their official capacities is GRANTED; (3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Phillips, Harvey , and Melton in their individual capacities is DENIED; and (4) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Claims are DISMISSED. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 4/4/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
March 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER: Having undertaken a review of this matter in accordance with Rule 72, the Court exercises its discretion to return this matter to the magistrate judge. It is unclear to the Court upon whose declarations and depositions, and upon what specif ically in those declarations and depositions, Magistrate Judge Frensley relied when determining that there exist genuine issues of material fact as to each of the Deck Defendants. Therefore, the Court requests Magistrate Judge Frensley to clarify and reissue an R & R. Accordingly, the R & R (Docket No. 82 ) is hereby DENIED to allow Magistrate Judge Frensley to issue a new one. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/31/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
February 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 83 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 46 ) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 2/8/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
January 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 82 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The undersigned finds that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Plaintiff received any medical treatment during or for some of his seizures and/or resulting injuries. The undersigned therefore recommends t hat the Deck Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 44 ) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 1/31/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
March 17, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER: The Clerk is directed to return the plaintiff's unsigned application to him. The plaintiff shall sign the application and resubmit it to the Clerks Office within fourteen (14) days of its receipt. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/17/14. (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: Newberry 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: Jack Newberry
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: 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 ]
Defendant: Ashley 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 ]
Defendant: Rodney Phillips
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?