Holt v. Davidson County Sheriff Office et al
| Gary Lamont Holt, Jr. |
| Davidson County Sheriff Office and ABL Food Management Inc |
| 3:2009cv01154 |
| December 7, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| E. Clifton Knowles |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
107
ORDER: Report and Recommendations 99 is adopted and approved. Defendant ABL's Motion for Summary Judgment 49 is Granted, and Plaintiff's claims against this last remaining Defendant are DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/5/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
99
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Knowles Recommends that ABL's Motion for Summary Judgement 49 be Granted, and that this action be Dismissed With Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 6/29/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER: Within 20 days of the entry of the instant Order, Defendant ABL shall file a Response to Plaintiffs Objections, addressing the referenced matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/20/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER: The first Report and Recommendation 80 , to which no Objections have been filed, is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant Davidson County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Dismiss 69 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims again st the Davidson County Sheriff's Office are DISMISSED. The second Report and Recommendation 83 , to which no Objections have been filed, is adopted and approved. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike 65 filed by Defendant ABL Food Management (&qu ot;ABL") is DENIED. The third Report and Recommendation 84 , to which no Objections have been filed, is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and Have Defendants Properly Served 73 is DENIED. The Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation 86 , the Objections, and the file. The Report and Recommendation is rejected, and the Court recommits the case to the Magistrate Judge to consider Plaintiff's Objections 90 . The Magistrate Ju dge shall then file a Report and Recommendation addressing in detail Plaintiffs First Amendment claim for injury to his constitutional right and any related respondeat superior issues. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 4/18/2011. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
86
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that deft ABL Food Management, Inc.'s 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment be GRANTED and that this action be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 3/22/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)
|
|
Filing
80
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Knowles Recommends that Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 69 be Granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 3/16/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
70
DENIAL OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT: The Clerk declines to enter default against Defendant Davidson County Sheriff's Office. Signed by Clerk of Court Keith Throckmorton on 12/15/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
41
SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 6/28/2010. Discovery due by 10/28/2010. Dispositive Motions due by 11/29/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/28/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER: Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum 37 is Denied. There is no Court proceedings scheduled for 4/27/10, in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/22/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail)(dt)
|
|
Filing
33
DENIAL OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT: Pending are Plaintiff's Requests for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment (Docket Entries 31 & 32 , respectively). Plaintiffs Request for Entry of Default is denied as it is made ag ainst the Davidson County Clerk, who was not named in the Complaint and is not a party to this action. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is denied for the reason that Plaintiff does not state in the motion which Defendant the motion is made against. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motions are denied. Signed by Clerk of Court, Keith Throckmorton, on 4/15/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER: Plaintiff is advised that the Court typically does not enter Scheduling Orders in cases until after Defendants have been served with process. Now that that has occurred, a Scheduling Order will be entered. In the instant Motion, Plaintiff also requests that he be appointed counsel 27 . There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case, and a Court shouldappoint counsel in such a case only under "exceptional circumstances." See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993). Such circumstances are not present here. Plaintiffs Motion is, therefore, DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/12/10. (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.
