Carroll et al v. Fentress Co Sheriff Depart. et al

Filing 320

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 286 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED. Defendant Faye Smith's Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 149 ) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff King's claims should be GRANTED, and the motion with respect to Plaintiff Carroll should be DENIED as moot; and the claims against Defendant Faye Smith are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This a ction is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01 for the remaining claims against Defendant Laurel Wasik. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/25/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la) Modified text on 9/25/2013 (la).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA LEE CARROLL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FENTRESS COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11-cv-0019
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Bryant

ORDER
In this case brought by two former inmates of the Fentress County Jail, the Magistrate
Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry No. 286),
recommending that Defendant Faye Smith’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment1
(Docket Entry No. 149) be granted with respect to Plaintiff King’s claims and denied as moot
with respect to Plaintiff Carroll.
The R & R provides, in part,
. . . the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that upon the proof in this record no
reasonable jury could find that Defendant Smith was willfully indifferent to the
serious medical needs of Plaintiff King. Therefore, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
Defendant Smith is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
(Docket Entry No. 286 at 8). Plaintiff King filed a timely response in opposition to the R & R.
(Docket Entry No. 297).

1

In addition to moving for summary judgment on Plaintiff King’s claims, Defendant Smith’s motion
sought dismissal of Plaintiff Carroll’s claims for failure to prosecute. The Court adopted a R & R of the
Magistrate Judge on July 30, 2013, and dismissed Plaintiff Carroll’s Complaint with prejudice. See
(Docket Entry Nos. 162 and 260).
1

Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the applicable law in accordance
with Rule 72(b), the Court will accept the R & R for the above-mentioned reason of the
Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 286) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) Defendant Faye Smith’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry
No. 149) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion for summary judgment
with respect to Plaintiff King’s claims should be GRANTED, and the motion with respect to
Plaintiff Carroll should be DENIED as moot; and
(3) The claims against Defendant Faye Smith are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in
accordance with Local Rule 16.01 for the remaining claims against Defendant Laurel Wasik.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2