Rose v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. et al (TV1)
Filing
272
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. (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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?