Durham v. Supreme Court of Tennessee et al

Filing 168

ORDER: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 164) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED, and Plaintiff's objections thereto (Docket Entry No. 167) are hereby OVERRULED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case and Enforce Findings of Declaratory Judgment and/or Reduce Findings to an Order or to Vacate Order (Docket Entry No. 145) is hereby DENIED; and (3) All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 149, 150, 152, 154, 157 and 159) are hereby DENIED as moot. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/10/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
SHERRIE L. DURHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF
TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:06-cv-0459
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Bryant

ORDER
In this case brought by pro se Plaintiff, Sherrie L. Durham, the Magistrate Judge has
entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry No. 164), recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Enforce Findings of Declaratory Judgment and/or
Reduce Findings to an Order or to Vacate Order (Docket Entry No. 145) be denied.1
The R & R provides, in part,
Six and one-half years ago, on March 14, 2007, plaintiff Sherrie L. Durham’s pro
se complaint in this case was dismissed and final judgment was entered against
her. (Docket Entry No. 107). The judgment of dismissal was affirmed by the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 19, 2008. (Docket Entry No. 143).
***
Here, plaintiff cannot in any sense be deemed to have “prevailed” or “succeeded”
in her efforts to obtain declaratory relief, so as to warrant further proceedings
flowing from the final judgment in this case. Rather, years ago, plaintiff’s
complaint seeking declaratory judgment was dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted, and that judgment of dismissal was affirmed
on appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any viable grounds
for resurrecting the matter at this late date.

1

Defendants filed a response in opposition on February 22, 2013 (Docket Entry No. 147), to which
Plaintiff filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 148).
1

(Docket Entry No. 164). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion “be
DENIED, and that all subsequently filed motions in this matter be DENIED as moot.” (Id. at 3).
Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R & R on October 2, 2013. (Docket Entry No. 167).
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. 164) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED, and Plaintiff’s objections thereto (Docket Entry No. 167) are hereby
OVERRULED;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Enforce Findings of Declaratory Judgment
and/or Reduce Findings to an Order or to Vacate Order (Docket Entry No. 145) is hereby
DENIED; and
(3) All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 149, 150, 152, 154, 157 and 159) are
hereby DENIED as moot.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2