Carry v. Raybin et al
| Eileen Carry |
| Hollins, Raybin & Weisman, PC and David Louis Raybin |
| 3:2011cv00818 |
| August 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Joe Brown |
| Kevin H. Sharp |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
18
ORDER: Having conducted a de novo review of the matter in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Accordingly, (1) The R & R 16 is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 14 is hereby GRANTED because Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 12/14/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw) Modified on 12/15/2011 (tmw).
|
|
Filing
16
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion to dismiss 14 and statute of limitations grounds be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 11/3/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw)
|
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.
