Jefferson v. Corizon Health Care Providers et al
Plaintiff: Samuel Jefferson
Defendant: Corizon Health Care Providers, Eli Lilly Corp. and (f/n/u) Greenwood
Case Number: 3:2012cv00988
Filed: September 25, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Nashville Office
County: Davidson
Presiding Judge: Todd J. Campbell
Presiding Judge: E. Clifton Knowles
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
December 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 201 ORDER: The R&Rs are therefore ACCEPTED in their entirety. The defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 88 , 152 ) are GRANTED; the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 107 ) is DENIED, and this action is DISM ISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. This is the final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 12/5/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
August 28, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 195 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 152 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Lilly's motion for summary judgmentbe GRANTED and that the complaint against Lilly be DISMISSED withprejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/28/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)
August 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 193 ORDER denying 149 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/5/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)
March 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 178 ORDER granting 107 Motion to Strike 105 Response to Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 3/14/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
December 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 164 ORDER denying 84 Motion for Entry of Deemed Admissions Due to deft Michael Greenwood's Failure to Respond. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 12/26/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
November 1, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 157 ORDER granting 156 Motion to Place Confidential Documents Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 11/1/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
September 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 135 ORDER: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that Defendant Eli Lilly and Company's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (D ocket Entry No. 43 ) be denied. Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 111 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and (2) Defendant Eli Lilly and Company's Motion to Dismiss for failu re to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Docket Entry No. 43 ) is hereby DENIED. This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/17/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)
August 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER: Jury Trial set for 5/6/2014 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A826 before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2014 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom A826 before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Defendant Lilly's motion to amend scheduling order to stay discovery (Docket Entry No. 67) is DENIED as moot. Discovery due by 11/25/2013. Dispositive Motions due by 12/16/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/26/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)
August 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 115 ORDER: Defendant Eli Lilly & Company, Inc. ("Lilly") has filed its motion to amend scheduling order (Docket Entry No. 114 ). Defendant's motion to amend the scheduling order is DENIED without prejudice to any party's right to seek a continuance of the trial date from the district judge. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/7/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)
July 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 111 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Defendant Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's pro se claims against it pursusant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be gra nted. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the DE 43 motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendant Lilly be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 7/30/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)
July 29, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: By order entered December 11, 2012 (Docket Entry No. 47 ), this matter was referred to the undersigned for case management and to recommend ruling on any dispositive motion. For the reasons stated, the undersigned here by recommends that the Defendant Greenwood's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 43 ) be GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 7/29/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)
November 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 35 DENIAL OF DEFAULT. Signed by Clerk of Court Keith Throckmorton on 11/28/12. (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: Jefferson v. Corizon Health Care Providers 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: Samuel Jefferson
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: Corizon Health Care Providers
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: Eli Lilly Corp.
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: (f/n/u) Greenwood
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?