Miller v. Maddox
| Andrea Miller |
| Woodston Maddox |
| 3:2013cv01270 |
| November 15, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| E. Clifton Knowles |
| John T. Nixon |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
79
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 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, the Response, and the file. The Court finds that the Ob jections of the Defendant are well-taken, and the Report and Recommendation is rejected. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 60 ) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot. The pretrial conference set for March 13, 2017, and the jury trial set for March 21, 2017, are canceled. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/4/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
|
Filing
76
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned finds that genuine issues of material fact exist and that Defendant is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The undersigned therefore recommends that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 60) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 10/13/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 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, the Response, and the file. Th e Objections of the Defendant are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Docket No. 18 ) is DENIED. This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further continued customized case management. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 9/30/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
|
Filing
39
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Docket No. 18) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 9/17/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
|
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
| Search for this case: Miller v. Maddox | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Andrea Miller | |
| Represented By: | R. Andrew Free |
| Represented By: | Kyle F. Mothershead |
| 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: Woodston Maddox | |
| 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.
