Anderson v. Commissioner Tennessee Department of Corrections et al

Filing 47

ORDER: The Court has received a letter from the plaintiff dated 12/26/2011, Docket Entry No. 46 . This letter to the Court is neither signed nor is there a certificate of service. The Clerk is directed not to accept for filing any further documents from the plaintiff which do not contain a proper certificate of service. The Magistrate Judge will GRANT the plaintiff until 1/18/2012, to respond to these two motions 38 and 43 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 1/5/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TREVOR MANNY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:11-0806
Judge Sharp/Brown

O R D E R
The Court has received a letter from the plaintiff dated
December 26, 2011, which the Clerk has docketed as Docket Entry
No.46). This matter should be docketed as a motion to extend time.
The Magistrate Judge notes that the plaintiff has not
provided a certificate of service showing that he has served a copy
of this pleading on counsel for the defendants.

The plaintiff

should style anything he files with the Court with a caption
similar to that used in this order and he must, in addition to
signing the pleading, certify that he has sent a copy to opposing
counsel.

A proper certificate of service would be as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing has been forwarded via U.S. Mail, postage
prepaid to counsel for the defendants, James L. Pope, Tennessee
Attorney General’s Office, P.O. Box 20207, Nashville, TN 37202, and
Marty Roy Phillips, Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, PLC, 209 E. Main
Street, P.O. Box 1147, Jackson, TN.
This ___ day of _________, 2012.
____________________________
<Plaintiff’s name>

This letter to the Court is neither signed nor is there
a certificate of service.

The Clerk is directed not to accept for

filing any further documents from the plaintiff which do not
contain a proper certificate of service.
Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge has considered the
plaintiff’s request.

At the present time there is pending before

Judge Sharp a report and recommendation entered by the Magistrate
Judge on November 30, 2011, recommending that the plaintiff’s
motion for preliminary injunction be denied. The time to object to
that report and recommendation was 15 days and that time has
passed.

There is also pending a motion to dismiss (Docket Entry

No. 38) filed by the defendant Schofield on December 5, 2011, and
a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants Andrews,
Arnold, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and Dr. Sator on
December 14, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 43). Both Docket Entry Nos. 38
and 43 are dispositive motions and under the scheduling order
(Docket Entry No. 41) the plaintiff has 28 days in which to respond
to these motions.
The Magistrate Judge will GRANT the plaintiff until
January 18, 2012, to respond to these two motions.

The plaintiff

is warned that failure to respond can be taken to mean that the
plaintiff has no objection to the motions, and if the Magistrate
Judge believes they have merit he may recommend that they be
granted.
2

It is so ORDERED.

/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3