Adkisson et al v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (TV1)

Filing 366

ORDER. The Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 326]. Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 10/15/18. Associated Cases: 3:13-cv-00505-TAV-HBG, 3:13-cv-00666-TAV-HBG, 3:14-cv-00020-TAV-HBG (JBR) Modified text on 10/15/2018 (JBR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GREG ADKISSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

KEVIN THOMPSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

JOE CUNNINGHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

BILL ROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

CRAIG WILKINSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

ANGIE SHELTON, as wife and next of
Kin on behalf of Mike Shelton, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG

Lead Case Consolidated with

No.:

3:13-CV-666-TAV-HBG

as consolidated with

No.:

3:14-CV-20-TAV-HBG

No.:

3:15-CV-17-TAV-HBG

No.:

3:15-CV-274-TAV-HBG

No.:

3:15-CV-420-TAV-HBG

JOHNNY CHURCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

DONALD R. VANGUILDER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

JUDY IVENS, as sister and next of kin,
on behalf of JEAN NANCE, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

PAUL RANDY FARROW,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:15-CV-460-TAV-HBG

No.:

3:15-CV-462-TAV-HBG

No.:

3:16-CV-635-TAV-HBG

No.:

3:16-CV-636-TAV-HBG

ORDER

This civil matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by
United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton, on October 1, 2018 (the “R&R”)
[Doc. 326]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommends that plaintiffs’ Motion for
Sanctions [Doc. 288 in Adkisson, 3:13-CV-505; Doc. 282 in Thompson, 3:13-CV-666;
Doc. 263 in Cunningham, 3:14-CV-20; Doc. 205 in Rose, 3:15-CV-17; Doc. 213 in
Wilkinson, 3:15-CV-274; Doc. 194 in Shelton, 3:15-CV-420; Doc. 195 in Church, 3:152

CV-460; Doc. 198 in Vanguilder, 3:15-CV-462; not docketed in Ivens, 3:16-CV-635, or
Farrow, 3:16-CV-636], be denied. There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and
enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been
waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
After a careful review of the matter, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Guyton’s recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. As
such, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 326]. Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Sanctions [Doc. 288 in Adkisson, 3:13-CV-505; Doc. 282 in Thompson, 3:13-CV-666;
Doc. 263 in Cunningham, 3:14-CV-20; Doc. 205 in Rose, 3:15-CV-17; Doc. 213 in
Wilkinson, 3:15-CV-274; Doc. 194 in Shelton, 3:15-CV-420; Doc. 195 in Church, 3:15CV-460; Doc. 198 in Vanguilder, 3:15-CV-462; not docketed in Ivens, 3:16-CV-635, or
Farrow, 3:16-CV-636] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3