Simmons v. Countrywide Home Loans et al

Filing 118

ORDER: Plaintiff has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Sixth Circuit (Case No. 12-6004), asking the appellate court to order this Court to rule on her Objection 112 filed in this case. The Court did not and cannot rule on Plaintiff' s Objection because when Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal 109 , this Court was divested of jurisdiction in this action. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, however, nothing about Plaintiff's Objection changes the result previously found 99 . Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/27/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail; 6CCA via email)(tmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LAKISHA SIMMONS
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, et al.

)
)
) NO. 3-11-0476
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Sixth Circuit (Case No. 12-6004),
asking the appellate court to order this Court to rule on her Objection (Docket No. 112) filed in this
case. The Court did not and cannot rule on Plaintiff’s Objection because when Plaintiff filed her
Notice of Appeal (Docket No. 109), this Court was divested of jurisdiction in this action.
The Court entered an Order on March 13, 2012, adopting and approving three Reports and
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 99). That Order did not close this case and
no Rule 58 Judgment was entered because the action is not concluded as to all parties. On March
29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objection (Docket No. 105). Before
the Court ruled on that Motion, on April 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Docket No.
109). After the case was appealed, Plaintiff filed her Objection (Docket No. 112) to the District
Court’s Order (Docket No. 99).
Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on any of Plaintiff’s pending Motions
or Plaintiff’s Objection, because Plaintiff has taken an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s March 13,
2012 Order. Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1993); Dayton Independent School
District v. U.S. Mineral Products Co., 906 F.2d 1059, 1064 (5th Cir. 1990).
Even if the Court had jurisdiction, however, nothing about Plaintiff’s Objection changes the
result previously found (Docket No. 99). See Lewis, 897 F.2d at 395.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Clerk for the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals as related to Case Nos. 12-5448 and 12-6004 in that court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2