Lilly v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al
| LaQuenza M. Lilly |
| Tennessee Department of Correction, Cathy McCarson, David Jenkins, Jamie Walter and Jeremy Rubert |
| 3:2011cv00061 |
| January 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Joe Brown |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| 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
130
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 125 ) and Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Docket No. 128). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, and the file. The Objections of the Plaintiff are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Acco rdingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to close this file. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 2/28/2013. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
|
Filing
125
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court find that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any of his claims in this matter by a preponderance of the proof. This case should be DISMISSED with prejudice with judgement for the Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 1/8/2013. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER: If the Plaintiff intends this motion to be an appeal of the Magistrate Judges decision, he needs to clearly state that he is appealing the Magistrate Judge's decision and he must file such a notice of appeal within 14 days of the entry of this order. To the extent the motion would request that the Magistrate Judge reconsider his previous order 55 , it is DENIED. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting a jury trial and discovery requests from the Defendants 56 . This motio n as to a jury trial is DENIED. As to the motion to secure discovery from the Defendants, the Plaintiff should follow the procedures set out in the scheduling order 43 . The Plaintiff should send his discovery request to the attorney for the Defenda nts and not file them with the Court. Once the discovery requests have been made, the opposing party has 30 days within which to respond. Should there be a failure to properly respond, the Plaintiff may send a request to the Magistrate Judge for a telephone conference about the matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/17/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
43
SCHEDULING ORDER: The Clerk is directed to return to the Plaintiff any further documents that do not contain a proper certificate of service. Plaintiff has filed motion to add defendants 39 is DENIED. Defendants should file their answer to the com plaint within 14 days of the entry of this order. Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 10/3/2011. Discovery due by 12/5/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 1/5/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/4/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 36), to which no Objections have been filed. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Add Defendants (Docket No. 39), but it is not an Objection to the Report a nd Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs c laims against the Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs Motion to Add Defendants (Docket No. 39) is referred to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 7/26/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(af)
|
|
Filing
36
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Brown Recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 29 be Granted in part and Denied in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/7/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED 30 days from the date of entry of this order on the docket in which to either pay the civil filing fee of $350.00 or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis along with a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the previous six month period. The Clerk will provide the plaintiff with a blank application toproceed in forma pauperis along with a copy of Administrative OrderNo. 93. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 12/22/10. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt) [Transferred from Tennessee Middle on 1/21/2011.]
|
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.
