Jordan v. Adams et al
| J.D. Jordan |
| Andrew Adams, Kristin Gaines Sallee, Eric Mendelson, Roger Hopkins, James Hutchens, Robert McCabe and National Health Investors, Inc. |
| 3:2017cv00006 |
| January 5, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Rutherford |
| Barbara D. Holmes |
| Waverly D. Crenshaw |
| Stockholders Suits |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 |
| 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
17
ORDER: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. No. 16.) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and conducted a de novo review of the record . The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendant National Health Investors, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED and Defendant National Health Investors, Inc. is DISMISSED WITH OUT PREJUDICE from this action. The remaining Defendants are also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for Jordan's failure to effect service of process. This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 7/28/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (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.
