Wolfe et al v. Alexander et al

Filing 109

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having considered the matter de novo in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judges recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Re port and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 106 ) is hereby ACCEPTED andAPPROVED;(2) Monique Parris-Taylor's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 98 ) ishereby GRANTED; and(3) The claim against Defendant Parris-Taylor is hereby DISMISSE D WITHPREJUDICE.This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management inaccordance with Local Rule 16.01 for claims relating to the remaining Defendants.It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 5/15/2013. (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 numerous
defendants, including Monique Parris-Taylor, 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”). At all times relevant to the incidents
referred to in the Complaint, Plaintiff was housed at the DeBerry Special Needs Facility. See
(Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 11, Complaint and Amended Complaint).
Pending before the Court is Monique Parris-Taylor’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 98). Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the motion.
Magistrate Judge Knowles entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket
Entry No. 106) in this case on April 12, 2013, concluding “there are no genuine issues of
material fact concerning Plaintiff’s sole allegation against Defendant Parris-Taylor, and
Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Id. at 3).1 Therefore, recommending

1

None of the other Defendants in this action is a party to the instant motion.
1

that the “Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 98) be GRANTED, and that she be
TERMINATED as a party to this action.” (Id. at 4). No opposition has been filed to the R&R.2
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. 106) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) Monique Parris-Taylor’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 98) is
hereby GRANTED; and
(3)

The claim against Defendant Parris-Taylor is hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.
This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in
accordance with Local Rule 16.01 for claims relating to the remaining Defendants.
It is SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Plaintiff received the R&R via Certified Mail on April 17, 2013. See (Docket Entry No. 108).
2