Guy v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee et al
| Amy Elizabeth Guy |
| The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Darron Hall and Janie Romines |
| 3:2014cv01585 |
| August 4, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Rutherford |
| William J. Haynes |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
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
121
MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/8/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 47 Report and Recommendation: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs state law claims (Docket Entry No. 15 ) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant Metropolitan Government and DENIED as moot with respect to Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant Sheriff Hall. Plaintiffs motion to file amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 51 ) is DENIED without prejudice to renew in conformity with the Court's Order. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/29/2015. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
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.
