Bumpas v. Corrections Corporations of America et al
| Darrell W. Bumpas |
| Corrections Corporations of America, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Daron Hall, Ronal Serpas, Phillip Norman Bredesen, Karl Dean, Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, Nashville General Hospital at MeHarry, W. Stone, Jeff Nidificen, George M. Little, Gayle Raye, Metropolitan Public Defenders Office, Dawn Deanor, Deputy Public Defender, Joseph Michael Engle, Jimmy Hale, Corrections Corporation of America - Metropolitan Davidson county Detention Facility Employees; And Internal Affairs Chief Investigatioor; Michael Davis, Victor S. Johnson, III, Thomas R. Thurman, Dustin Melvin, Ronald Sanders, Ricky York, Ahdid Adow and Benjamin Manuel Russ |
| 3:2010cv01055 |
| November 8, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
332
ORDER denying motions 330 & 331 . Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/14/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)
|
|
Filing
325
ORDER ADOPTING 317 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 290 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing (Docke t No. 312 ) is hereby DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b). It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/6/2013. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
273
ORDER: Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R (Docket No. 248 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Plaintiff's "Public Notice and Motion for a[n] Extension of Time to File Responses" (Docket No. 256 ) is hereby DENIED; (3) Plaintiff's Objections to the R & R (Docket No. 258 ) are hereby OVERRULED; (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 172 ) is hereby DENIED; and (5) All claims against all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WI TH PREJUDICE, except Plaintiff's claims against CCA that the food served to him was so nutritionally inadequate that he lost over 50 pounds, and that he was categorically denied pain medication and medical treatment. CCA shall answer or otherwis e respond to those allegations within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this Order. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court hereby FINDS that any appeal of this Order dismissing parties and claims, and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, would not be taken in good faith. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/13/2012. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
249
ORDER: By a contemporaneously entered Report and Recommendation, the Court has recommended that all defendants and claims in this action be dismissed except for limited claims against Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. Accordingly, the followin g motions are DENIED as MOOT, with leave to be re-filed if the Report and Recommendation is not adopted: Motion to dismiss of Mark Fishburn 91 ; Motion to dismiss of Victor S. Johnson and Thomas Thurman 101 ; Motion to dismiss of Sarah Davis 103 ; Motion to dismiss of Joshua Brand 105 ; Motion to dismiss of Benjamin Russ 107 ; Motion for extension of time to respond of Canteen CCA Food Services Supply Company 120 ; Motion for extension of time, for more definite statement, and to dismiss o f Purity Dairies, Inc. 122 ; and Motion to dismiss of J.D. Smith 158 . The plaintiff's motions, Docket Entry Nos. 90 , 98 , 99 , 134 , and 196 are GRANTED to the extent that he requests a copy of the docket sheet in this action and a cop y of his amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the docket sheet and a copy of the amended complaint 25 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's remaining motions, Docket Entry Nos. 47 , 86 , 118 , 126 , 127 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 135 , 174 , 194 , 198 , 200 , 201 , 217 , and 241 , are DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 8/30/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
244
ORDER: This case appears to be out of control largely due to Plaintiff's numerous filings and "notices," many of which appear to be delusional and have no relation to Plaintiffs allegations that are currently before the Court. Plainti ff is hereby DIRECTED to make no further filings in this case until the Court has had an opportunity to review Plaintiffs claims, as set forth in the Magistrate Judge' Order entered on 3/8/2011 115 , and address the other issues currently pendi ng before the Court in this case. If the Court determines that further information from Plaintiff is required to address the current pending matters, an order will be entered directing Plaintiff to respond accordingly. Plaintiff is forewarned that fa ilure to abide by the Court's instructions in this Order may result in his documents being returned to him without filing by the Clerk of Court. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 7/5/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
115
ORDER: Motions to set a Hearing 68 and 95 are Granted In Part. Although the Court sees no need to conduct a court hearing on the matter at this time, the Court shall conduct a review of the plaintiff's claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 67; 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), as expeditiously as possible and prior to the Court bearing the additional expenses which will arise from reissuing process to any of the defendants for whom process was returned unexecuted. The motions for an extensi on of time to file responses to the complaint filed by the Metro Defendants and Defendant J.D. Smith 69 and the CCA Defendants 96 are GRANTED. The time for all defendants named in the action to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is exte nded until further Order of the Court. However, the Court expects notices of appearance to be filed on behalf of any defendants who obtain counsel in the action. The plaintiff's motion 47 to have three additional service packets sent to him an d motion 86 to have 36 additional service packets sent to him and to have process reissued on these 36 service packets are TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT pending the Court's review of this action as set out herein. The motion to dismiss 91 filed by Defendant Mark Fishburn is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT pending the Court's review of the action as set our herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 3/8/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER: The plaintiff's motion 28 for a copy of the docket sheet in this action and a copy of his amended complaint is GRANTED. Additionally, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks a copy of the docket sheet in his motion to compel 90 , motion for leave of the court 98 , and motion to compel 99 , the motions are GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to send to the plaintiff a copy of the current docket sheet and a copy of his amended complaint 25 . To the extent that the plaintiff requests in his motion 28 that an unspecified number of additional service packets be sent to him, this request is DENIED as moot as it appears that the Clerk sent additional service packets to the plaintiff on 1/25/2011, in response to the motion. The plaint iff's motion 29 requesting an extension of time to return the completed service packets is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff's return of the completed service packets shall be viewed as timely. The plaintiff's motion to compel [56 ], which seeks only to have a copy of the Local Rules of Court sent to him, is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to send to the plaintiff a copy of the Local Rules of Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 3/7/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
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.
