Wolfe et al v. Alexander et al

Filing 103

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 79 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED and the objection thereto (Docket Entry No. 83) is hereby OVERRULED; and (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (Docket Entry No. 74 ) is hereby DENIED as moot. This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/8/2013. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TONY WOLFE,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL ALEXANDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-cv-0751
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Knowles

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Tony Wolfe filed a Complaint on August 5, 2011, against a number of
defendants, wherein he sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional
rights purported to have occurred during his confinement at the Tennessee Department of
Correction (“TDOC”). See (Docket Entry No. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. (Docket Entry No. 74). In
essence, Plaintiff claims Defendants are not allowing him the right to refuse a medical diet and
receive a regular food tray.1 Several Defendants filed responses in opposition to said motion.
See (Docket Entry Nos. 75 and 78).
Magistrate Judge Knowles entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket
Entry No. 79) in this case on October 1, 2012, concluding,
A number of Defendants have filed a Response to the Motion (Docket No. 78),
with the Affidavit of Adrienne Sims (Docket No. 78-1). Ms. Sims’ Affidavit
establishes that, since August 20, 2012, Plaintiff has received a regular diet tray
for all meals.
Plaintiff has not submitted a Reply to the Response or otherwise contested the
factual matters set forth in Ms. Sims’ Affidavit.
1

Plaintiff is housed at the Deberry Special Needs Facility in Nashville, Tennessee, because of his kidney
failure. See (Docket Entry No. 1 at 3).
1

For the foregoing reasons, the instant “Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order” (Docket No. 74) should be DENIED AS MOOT.
(Id.). Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R & R on October 12, 2012, along with an
Affidavit in support. (Docket Entry Nos. 82 and 83). In the Affidavit, Plaintiff admits that he
has been receiving a regular food tray since August 20, 2012. (Docket Entry No. 83 at ¶ 9).
Having considered the matter de novo in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 79) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED and the objection thereto (Docket Entry No. 83) is hereby OVERRULED; and
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order
(Docket Entry No. 74) is hereby DENIED as moot.
This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in
accordance with Local Rule 16.01.
It is SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2