Matthews v. Civic Core et al
ORDER: (1) The Reports and Recommendations (Doc. Nos. 33 & 39 ) are ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Matthews' Motions for Transfer (Doc. Nos. 26 & 27 ) are DENIED; and (3) The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19 ) filed by Defendants Staggs, Ril ey and Lindamood is hereby GRANTED and the claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This matter is returned to Magistrate Judge Holmes for further pretrial case management in relation to Matthews' Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant CivicCore. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/26/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CORECIVIC, et al.
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW
Pending before the Court are two Reports and Recommendations (“R&R”) from Magistrate
Judge Holmes. In the first, (Doc. No. 33), she recommends that Plaintiff Mack Matthews’ “Motions
for Transfer From Defendants’ Custody” (Doc. Nos. 26 & 27) be denied. In the second, (Doc. No.
39), she recommends that the unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) filed by Defendants
Rhonda Staggs, Rhonda Riley, and Cherry Lindamood be granted. Objections have only been filed
with regard to the first R&R.
In objecting to the recommended denial of his Motions for Transfer, Matthews claims that
he has been in protective custody at the South Central Correctional Center for six months1 and that
he is losing “program credit which shorten [his] expiration date” for parole. (Doc. No. 37 at 2). He
also claims that denial of a transfer “will be giving defendants permission to violate and disrespect
the law.” (Id.). As Magistrate Judge Holmes pointed out, however, Matthews is effectively seeking
preliminary injunctive relief, which “is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only if the
In his Complaint, Matthews admits that he was “a victim of a viscious [sic] stabbing and assault
by gang members” while at the facility and the alleged perpetrators are still housed there. (Doc. No.1,
Complaint at 7).
movant carries his or her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet
v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). As she also pointed out,
“[a]bsent extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, the Court will not intervene in matters such
as the day-to-day operations of a correctional facility and the location of a prison inmate’s housing,”
(Doc. No. 33 at 3), and no such compelling reasons have been shown here. Those observations
aside, less than a month after filing his objections, Matthews notified the Court that his address
changed and that he is now housed at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility (Doc. No. 38),
rendering his request for transfer moot.
In the second R&R, Magistrate Judge Holmes recommends that Staggs, Riley and
Lindamood be dismissed because Matthews’ deprivation of property claims were dismissed upon
this Court’s initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Complaint is bereft of allegations that
those Defendants violated Matthews’ Eighth Amendment right to medical care. Having considered
the matter de novo as required by Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees
that Matthews has failed to state a viable claim against those three Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The Reports and Recommendations (Doc. Nos. 33 & 39) are ACCEPTED and
(2) Matthews’ Motions for Transfer (Doc. Nos. 26 & 27) are DENIED; and
(3) The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) filed by Defendants Staggs, Riley and Lindamood
is hereby GRANTED and the claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED WITH
This matter is returned to Magistrate Judge Holmes for further pretrial case management in
relation to Matthews’ Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant CivicCore.
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?