Dunn v. Brantley et al

Filing 49

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court respectfully RECOMMENDS: 1. the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry No. 41) filed by Defendants Sean Brantley and Richard Burks be GRANTED; 2. the motion of Bradley Strawn to set aside service of p rocess and be dismissed (Docket Entry No. 35) be GRANTED; and 3. this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety as to all Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 10/1/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSHUA DUNN
v.
SEAN BRANTLEY, et al.

)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:15-0001

TO: Honorable William J. Haynes, Senior District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMENDATION
By Order entered March 6, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 8), this action was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, to hear and determine any pretrial issues and motions, to conduct any necessary
conferences and hearings, and to submit a report and recommendation for disposition of any motion
filed under Rules 12, 15, 56, and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Presently pending is a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry No. 41) filed by
Defendants Sean Brantley and Richard Burks. Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the
motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the motion be granted and this
action be dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) currently
confined at the Morgan County Correctional Complex. On January 12, 2015, he filed this action pro

se and in forma pauperis seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his federal civil
rights alleged to have occurred in 2014 during his confinement at the South Central Correctional
Facility (“SCCF”) in Clifton, Tennessee. Specifically, he alleges that he was physically assaulted
on April 5, 2014, by SCCF correctional officers Sean Brantley, Richard Burks, and f/n/u Stroud and
that he suffered injuries as a result of the assault. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) at 2-3.
Upon initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, the Court found that
Plaintiff alleged arguable legal claims and ordered that process issue to Defendants. See Order
entered May 26, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 23). Defendants Brantley and Burks were served and filed
a joint answer. See Docket Entry No. 39. Defendant Stroud has not been served in the action. See
Docket Entry No. 35.1
By their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendants Brantley and Burks (hereafter
referred to collectively as “Defendants”) assert that the claims brought by Plaintiff in this lawsuit are
barred by the terms of a prior settlement agreement that he entered into with Corrections Corporation
of America, Inc. (“CCA”), a private entity that has contracted with the State of Tennessee to operate
the SCCF. Defendants contend that Plaintiff brought a prior lawsuit, Dunn v. Chapman, et al,
No. 1:14-0051 (“the Dunn lawsuit”), against CCA and CCA employees based upon events occurring
at the SCCF that was settled by the parties pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement and
release of claims. Although the underlying facts of the Dunn lawsuit are unrelated to the facts at
issue in the instant lawsuit, Defendants assert that Plaintiff agreed to a release of claims as part of

1

Process for Defendant Stroud was incorrectly served upon a SCCF employee named
Bradley Strawn. See Docket Entry No. 35. Mr. Strawn filed a motion to set aside the service of
process upon him and to be dismissed from the action. That motion has not been opposed by
Plaintiff and should be granted for the reasons set out in the motion.
2

the settlement agreement and that the release applies to the claims Plaintiff now seeks to bring.
Defendants have attached to their answer and filed under seal a copy of the confidential settlement
agreement and release. See Docket Entry No. 40.2
By Order entered July 29, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 45), the Court notified Plaintiff of
Defendants’ motion and gave him a deadline of August 31, 2015, to respond. Plaintiff has not
responded to the motion or otherwise contacted the Court since Defendants’ motion was filed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “is appropriately granted ‘when no material issue of fact exists and the party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.’“ See Tucker v. Middleburg–Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th
Cir. 2008). In making this determination, the Court utilizes the standards applied to motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603, 605
(6th Cir .2011). Thus, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
accept all of the complaint's factual allegations as true, and determine whether Plaintiff undoubtedly
can prove no set of facts in support of his claims for relief. See Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic
Foundation, 759 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 2014); JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d
577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007).

2

Defendants have filed a redacted copy of their motion and supporting memorandum, as well
as an un-redacted copy of the motion and supporting memorandum that have been filed under seal.
See Docket Entry Nos. 43 & 44.
3

III. CONCLUSIONS
Defendants’ motion should be granted and this action should be dismissed. The Court has
reviewed the terms of the confidential settlement agreement and finds that it includes a general
release of all claims Plaintiff may have had against all employees of CCA that arose during the time
that he was held in custody and incarcerated at the SCCF. See Docket Entry No. 40 at ¶ 1. While
the settlement agreement does not apply to claims that arose after Plaintiff entered into the
agreement, the claims in the instant action arose and were obviously known about by Plaintiff prior
to his execution of the settlement agreement. Thus, the claims he seeks to bring in the instant lawsuit
are covered by the release that is included in the settlement agreement.
Plaintiff cannot escape the language of the settlement agreement that he signed, and he has
not shown any valid legal reason why he should not be held to the terms of the settlement agreement.
The terms of the settlement agreement are clear and unambiguous and bar him from pursuing the
claims he brings in the instant action against the three CCA employees.3 See Watson Carpet & Floor
Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 2009 WL 2767052, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 27, 2009)
(Wiseman, J.), aff'd, 648 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2011); Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Austin Co., 868 S.W.2d
649, 654 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1993); Evans v. Tillet Bros. Const. Co., Inc., 545 S.W.2d 8, 11
(Tenn.Ct.App. 1976).

3

Although Defendant Stroud has not been served in the action, the claims against him are
likewise barred by the settlement agreement.
4

RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set out above, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS:
1. the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket Entry No. 41) filed by Defendants Sean
Brantley and Richard Burks be GRANTED;
2. the motion of Bradley Strawn to set aside service of process and be dismissed (Docket
Entry No. 35) be GRANTED; and
3. this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety as to all Defendants.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with
particularity the specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.
Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.
1981).

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge

5