Leach v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
| Tazarius Leach |
| Corrections Corporation of America, Damon Hiniger, Trousdale Turner Correctional Center, Blair Leibach, Jerry Warlow, Yolanda Pittman, Richard Aballay, Joe Shweizter, John Doe, (f/n/u) Briggs, (f/n/u) Maxwell, (f/n/u) Eckford, Grievance Chirperson, Jessie Garner, (f/n/u) Mitchell and (f/n/u) Morom |
| 3:2016cv02876 |
| November 14, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Kevin H. Sharp |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
122
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION: Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial and/or Notice to Appeal. (Doc. No. 121 ). There was no trial in this case. Therefore, the Court will consider Plaintiff's motion for a new tria l as a motion to alter or amend judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion, whether construed as a motion to amend his complaint, a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order, is her eby DENIED. Plaintiff also seeks to appeal the Court's April 5, 2019 ruling dismissing this action. (Doc. No. 121 ). Petitioner is hereby GRANTED 30 days within which to submit either the required appellate filing fee of five hundred and fiv e dollars ($505.00) or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis for Petitioner's convenience. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 6/4/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail along with a blank IFP application.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER: Having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's determinations and the Plaintiff's objections, for the reasons stated herein, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff's objections are without merit, and the Repo rt and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ( 86 ) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 4/5/19. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (gb)
|
|
Filing
105
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(JBB)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 60 Report and Recommendation. On November 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. 60], recommending that Defendants Doe, Garner and the Grievance Chairperson be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to obtain service of process in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff failed to file objections within the fourteen day period pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 72( b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Defendants Doe, Garner and the Grievance Chairperson are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts on 12/5/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (am)
|
|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/4/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
|
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.
