Nelson v. Putnam County Justice Center et al

Filing 45

ORDER: After the Court's review of Plaintiff's pro se Complaint, the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 40 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED and this case is hereby DISMISSED. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/30/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY NELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PUTNAM COUNTY JUSTICE
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13-0029
Judge Sharp

ORDER
In this Court’s initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), the Court wrote:
The plaintiff has an obligation to exercise due diligence to take discovery and
conduct a reasonable investigation to promptly determine the actual names and
business addresses of the medical staff members at Putnam County Justice Center,
to promptly amend his complaint to correctly identify these defendants by their real
names once their names are ascertained, and to effect timely service of process upon
the individuals presently identified in the complaint only by title, as required by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m).
(Docket No. 4 at 2-3). After the case was reopened (having been dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure
to keep the Court apprised of his current address), Magistrate Judge Knowles entered an Order on
August 27, 2013, which, in relevant part, provided:
By Order entered on the docket on April 15, 2013 (Docket No. 4) by the Honorable
Kevin H. Sharp, Plaintiff was granted permission to file an amended complaint in
this action to substitute a named defendant for “Medical Staff”. The Plaintiff filed
a letter on August 21, 2013, identifying the Nurse Practitioner. Therefore, Plaintiff
shall file his amended complaint on or before September 16, 2013.
(Docket No. 29).
September 16, 2013, came and went without the filing of an Amended Complaint and so,
1

on September 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Knowles entered an Order that graciously gave Plaintiff
until October 11, 2013 within which to filed an Amended Complaint. In so doing, Magistrate Judge
Knowles specifically warned Plaintiff that if he “fails to comply with the instant Order, the
undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed.” (Docket No. 35 at 1).
October 11, 2013, also came and went without the filing of an Amended Complaint.
Magistrate Judge Knowles, true to his word, entered a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. Despite being specifically informed in the
Report and Recommendation that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of
service, Plaintiff filed no objections. Instead, he filed two letters, both of which state that he
provided service packets to the Court at some point during the week of October 7, 2013. Whether
or not he provided service packets has no bearing on the fact that he did not file an Amended
Complaint within the time ordered by the Court, even though that time was extended sua sponte.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 40) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED and this case is hereby DISMISSED.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2