Cravens v. Smith et al

Filing 79

ORDER: Report and Recommendation 76 is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on Behalf of Defendants Tony Choate, Dan Harding, Mark Parsons, and Greg Hicks, in their Individual Capacities 66 is hereby GRANTED. Defend ant Faye Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment 72 is hereby GRANTED. All other pending motions 62 and 65 are hereby TERMINATED as moot. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 4/3/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JAMES CRAVENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TONY CHOATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12-cv-0119
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Knowles

ORDER
In this case brought by a former inmate of the Fentress County Jail, Magistrate Judge
Knowles has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry No. 76),
recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on Behalf of Defendants Tony
Choate, Dan Harding, Mark Parsons, and Greg Hicks, in their Individual Capacities and
Defendant Faye Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 66 and 72) be
granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice.1
The R & R provides, in part,
As an initial matter, the statute of limitations for a §1983 action is the same as that
for personal injuries, which, in Tennessee, is one year. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471
U.S. 261 (1985); Tenn. Code Ann. §28-3-104(a)(3). The statute of limitations
begins to run when Plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury which is
the basis of his action.” Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853, 857
(6th Cir. 2003).
***
Given these facts, it is undisputed that Plaintiff knew of the injury forming the
basis of this action on September 28, 2011. As mentioned, Plaintiff did not file
this case until December 26, 2012, well outside the one-year statute of limitations.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
1

The defendants in these two motions are the only remaining defendants in this action. See (Docket
Entry No. 3).
1

***
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned concludes that, viewing all the facts
and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and Defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The
undersigned therefore recommends that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment (Docket Nos. 66, 72) be GRANTED.
(Docket Entry No. 76 at 14-15). No response in opposition was filed to the R & R.
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 reasons of the
Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 76) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on Behalf of Defendants Tony Choate, Dan
Harding, Mark Parsons, and Greg Hicks, in their Individual Capacities (Docket Entry No. 66) is
hereby GRANTED;
(3) Defendant Faye Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 72) is
hereby GRANTED;
(4) All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 62 and 65) are hereby TERMINATED
as moot; and
(5) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

2

It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3