Bonds v. Tennessee Department of Corrections et al
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation ( 119 ) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendant Turman's Motion to Dismiss ( 88 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Lindamood, Bowers, Staggs, Trafton, Pevahouse, Bryant, Brantley, Wesson, Inman, Martinez, and James's Mo tion for Summary Judgment ( 91 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Moore is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff's Motion to Amend ( 94 ) is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 2/9/18. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHERRY LINDAMOOD, ET AL.,
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 119)
concerning multiple dispositive motions. No timely objection has been filed. The Magistrate Judge
recommends granting the pending motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, as well
as denying the motion to amend the complaint. (Id.) The Court has conducted a de novo review of
this Section 1983 action arising from Plaintiff’s seven-day stay in prison administrative
segregation. The Court concludes that the thorough Report and Recommendation is correct.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 119) is APPROVED AND
ADOPTED. Defendant Turman’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 88) is GRANTED. Defendant
Lindamood, Bowers, Staggs, Trafton, Pevahouse, Bryant, Brantley, Wesson, Inman, Martinez, and
James’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 91) is GRANTED. Defendant Moore is
DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No.
94) is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED.
This is a final order and the clerk shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?