Whipple v. Rochelle et al

Filing 174

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: In light of the response by Defendants, the issue raised by Plaintiff in his motion has been resolved, and Plaintiff has effectively obtained the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunctio n (Docket Entry No. 136) should be DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 1/4/2017. (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
ROBERT ZENAS WHIPPLE, III
v.
ROGER ROCHELLE, et al.

)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:15-0040

TO: Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr., Senior District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMENDATION
By Order entered May 15, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 10), the Court referred this action to the
Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Rule 72(a) and (b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for pretrial proceedings 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.
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) currently
confined at the Bledsoe County Correctional Complex (“BCCX”) in Pikeville, Tennessee. In this
pro se and in forma pauperis civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he alleges that
prison officials have retaliated against him because he files grievances and lawsuits. By Order
entered May 5, 2015 (Docket Entry No. 5), the Court found that Plaintiff alleged colorable
constitutional claims and ordered that process issue to several defendants. The parties are currently
engaged in pretrial activity pursuant to scheduling order deadlines. See Docket Entry Nos. 99 and
133.
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket
Entry No. 136). Plaintiff asserts that his institutional file contains incorrect or incomplete

information regarding a disciplinary proceeding that was dismissed. He seeks an order requiring
TDOC officials to remove all references to the disciplinary report so that the information will not
be considered at his upcoming parole hearing. Upon the directive of the Court, see Order entered
December 9, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 166), Defendants have filed a response to the motion. They
assert that review of the matter by a TDOC staff attorney shows that there is no mention of the
disciplinary report in Plaintiff’s electronic inmate record maintained on the Tennessee Offender
Management Information System (“TOMIS”) and that any and all references to the disciplinary
report that were contained in Plaintiff’s paper/hard copy institutional record have been removed and
destroyed. See Docket Entry No. 165.
In light of the response by Defendants, the issue raised by Plaintiff in his motion has been
resolved, and Plaintiff has effectively obtained the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 136) should be DENIED as moot.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and Recommendation upon the party 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
2