Clark v. Dodd et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Order (Docket No. 12) be GRANTED and that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 5/17/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
TAMIR T. CLARK
DANNY DODD, ET AL
Civil No. 1:17-cv-00015
Chief Judge Crenshaw
Magistrate Judge Frensley
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is pro se prisoner Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order
Pursuant to Rule 60(B)(1) of the F.R.Civ.P. Docket No. 12. The Motion seeks relief from the
Court’s Memorandum (Docket No. 10) wherein the Court reviewed the action pursuant to the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and concluded that the complaint states viable First
Amendment and RLUIPA claims against Defendant Dodd as well as viable Eighth Amendment
Claims against Defendants Buttram and Deatherage. For the reasons stated herein, the
undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted and that the civil action be dismissed
In support of his Motion, Plaintiff asserts the following:
The plaintiff asserts that the courts have mistakenly took the plaintiff’s criminal
complaint as a civil suit. The plaintiff does not wish to pursue a civil action
against defendants but clearly stated in the complaint that it's an "Application to
testify before the Magistrate regarding felony crimes.”
Docket No. 12, p. 1. (emphasis in original)
The Plaintiff is absolutely clear that he does not wish to pursue a civil action. He has not
taken any action to secure service of process and has not returned completed service packets as
required by this court’s previous order. Docket No. 11. To the extent that the Plaintiff wishes to
pursue criminal action against the Defendants, this lawsuit is not the appropriate vehicle to do so.
To the extent that the Plaintiff believes that crimes were committed he should bring those matters
to the attention of the United States Attorney or other appropriate law enforcement. However,
this action is not the appropriate vehicle for pursuing criminal prosecution of the Defendants.
Because the Plaintiff has clearly stated that he “does not wish to pursue a civil action
against defendants” the undersigned interprets this as a motion to dismiss the civil claims in this
action. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order
(Docket No. 12) be GRANTED and that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has ten (10) days
from receipt 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 ten (10)
days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any response to said
objections. Failure to file specific objections within ten (10) days of receipt of this Report and
Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. 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).
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY
U. S. District Magistrate 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?