Hobbs v. City of Hohenwald, Tennessee et al
Filing
46
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the instant Motion (Docket No. 26 ) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Kylie Barber be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 9/1/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (afs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
WILLIAM T. HOBBS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
CITY OF HOHENWALD, TENNESSEE,)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
CASE NO. 1:15-00052
JUDGE HAYNES/KNOWLES
JURY DEMAND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with
prejudice filed by the pro se Defendant Kylie Barber. Docket No. 26. Plaintiff has filed a
Response stating that he “does not oppose Kylie Barber’s motion to dismiss . . . .” Docket No.
42.
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the instant Motion (Docket
No. 26) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Kylie Barber be dismissed
with prejudice.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?