Tramel v. Rutherford Sheriff's Department et al
Plaintiff: Jim R. Tramel
Defendant: Rutherford County, Tennessee, Robert Arnold and Rutherford Sheriff's Department
Case Number: 3:2013cv00658
Filed: July 3, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Nashville Office
County: Rutherford
Presiding Judge: Todd J. Campbell
Presiding Judge: Juliet E. Griffin
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
August 12, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER: Defendants' 39 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. This case remains set for a pretrial conference on October 20, 2014, and a jury trial on October 28, 2014. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/12/2014. (ds)
August 1, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER denying 49 Motion to Strike Defendant's Reply. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/1/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ds)
February 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER granting 35 Joint MOTION to extend deadlines and amend case management order. Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 3/31/2014. Discovery due by 4/30/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 6/16/2014. Replies due by 7/30/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 2/20/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
November 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 26 ), to which no Objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docket No. 20 ) is DENIED. The case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further customized case management. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 11/12/2013. (hb)
October 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Defendants' MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint 20 be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 10/23/2013. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
September 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 18 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2: By contemporaneously entered order, the Court has approved and entered the parties' initial case management order, with substantial modifications addressed at the initial case management conference held on August 26, 2013. Amended Pleadings due by 2/18/2014. Discovery due by 2/28/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 5/12/2014. The defendants shall have until September 17, 2013, to file an answer to the amended complaint or a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 9/3/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)
August 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER: Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 11 ). Since the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 14 ). Accordingly,because Defendants' Motion no longer addresses the operative Complaint, that Motion (Docket No. 11 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/30/13. (la)
July 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER: This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for customized case management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(e)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), discovery is not stayed absent order of the District Judge. This case shall be set for trial upon completion of the initial case management conference by order of the District Judge in accordance with the procedures of Local Rule 16.01(d)(5). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 7/9/13. (la)
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: Tramel v. Rutherford Sheriff's Department et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rutherford County, Tennessee
Represented By: Thomas Stephen Santel, Jr.
Represented By: Josh A. McCreary
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: Robert Arnold
Represented By: Thomas Stephen Santel, Jr.
Represented By: Josh A. McCreary
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: Rutherford Sheriff's Department
Represented By: Thomas Stephen Santel, Jr.
Represented By: Josh A. McCreary
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jim R. Tramel
Represented By: Benjamin L. Parsley, III
Represented By: Terry A. Fann
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?