Kirk v. Correction Corporation of America et al

Filing 166

ORDER denying 128 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 128 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 162 Report and Recommendation. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 162), t o which Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. No. 165). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections, and conducted a de novo review of the record. Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Brown erred in Sectio n II.D. of his Report and Recommendation by misunderstanding the Tennessee Department of Correction grievance process. (Doc. No. 165.) However, Judge Brown correctly cited the grievance process found that Plaintiff did not move any of his grievanc es to the next level after having not received a response to them in the time allotted under the Tennessee Department of Correction Policy. (Doc. No. 162 at 11-12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and his objec tions are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 128) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 8/18/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
JASON KIRK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTION CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:16-cv-00031
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
No. 162), to which Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. No. 165). The Court has reviewed the
Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and conducted a de novo review of the record.
Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Brown erred in Section II.D. of his Report and
Recommendation by misunderstanding the Tennessee Department of Correction grievance
process. (Doc. No. 165.) However, Judge Brown correctly cited the grievance process found that
Plaintiff did not move any of his grievances to the next level after having not received a response
to them in the time allotted under the Tennessee Department of Correction Policy. (Doc. No. 162
at 11-12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and his objections
are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 128) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE