L.A. v. Mitchell et al

Filing 117

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 82 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and APPROVED, and pltf's 91 Objections thereto are OVERRULED. All remaining pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/20/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(rd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
L.A., an adjudicated “adult ward”
under court-appointed conservatorship,
by Next Friend, and mother,
Renate Arnold,
Plaintiff,
v.
BELINDA MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-cv-01088
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Bryant

ORDER
Renate Arnold (“Arnold”) as next of friend and mother of her daughter, L.A.
(“Plaintiff”), has filed a Complaint pro se against the following:
1. Belinda Mitchell, court-appointed conservator;
2. Andrea Hedrick, court-appointed guardian ad litem;
3. The probate division of the Davidson County Circuit Court;
4. Randy Kennedy, a state court judge who presided over a portion of the conservatorship
proceeding;
5. D.J. Alissandratos, who was specially appointed as a state court judge to preside over
the conservatorship proceeding;
6. Tennessee Department of Human Services;
7. Tennessee Department of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities;
8. The ARC of Tennessee, Inc.;
9. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools;
10. Exchange Club Family Center, Inc.;
1

11. Restoration Residential Services, LLC;
12. The State of Tennessee; and
13. Office of the Tennessee Attorney General.
Arnold alleges that Defendants have violated her mentally incompetent daughter’s rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and her rights under
various amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other
civil statutes.
On April 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bryant entered an order (Docket Entry No. 73)
requiring Plaintiff’s next of friend and mother, Arnold, to show cause why the complaint should
not be dismissed for her failure to be represented by a licensed attorney, as required by law. In
her response to the Court’s order to show cause (Docket Entry No. 80), Arnold contended that
the Court should remedy this deficiency by granting her Verified Motion for Appointment of
Guardian Ad Litem (Docket Entry No. 2).
The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry
No. 82) in this case on May 18, 2012, finding that “this is not a case presenting substantial
constitutional question or such exceptional circumstances as to warrant appointment of counsel
for plaintiff.” Therefore, finding that Renate Arnold, as mother and next of friend of L.A., may
not prosecute this case without representation by a licensed attorney and, therefore, that the
complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. A timely objection to the R & R was filed on
June 26, 2012. (Docket Entry No. 91).1
Having reviewed the matter de novo in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b), the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s Objections and accept the R & R.

1

An Order was entered on May 23, 2012, granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Written
Objections to Magistrate’s Report & Recommendations. See (Docket Entry Nos. 84 and 86).
2

Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 82) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED, and Plaintiff’s Objections thereto (Docket Entry No. 91) are hereby
OVERRULED;
(2) All remaining pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT; and
(3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3