Maynard v. Hale et al

Filing 35

ORDER: Because the R & R relates to a dispositive motion, this Court's review is de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Having undertaken that review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against any of the Defendants upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R&R (Docket No. 32) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30) is hereby GRANTED ; and (3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in a separate document in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/17/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DUSTON DEAN MAYNARD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAM HALE, BRUCE HELMS, JESSIE )
OLIVER, BARBARA JACKSON,
)
LYNETTE GAVIN, and PATRICIA
)
PATTERSON,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:11-1233
Judge Sharp

ORDER
The Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 32)
in which he recommends that the unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30) filed by Defendants
Pam Hale, Chaplain Bruce Helms, Jesse Oliver, Barbara Jackson, and Patricia Patterson be granted,
and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Despite being specifically advised in the R & R that
objections were to be filed within fourteen days, Plaintiff has filed none.
Because the R & R relates to a dispositive motion, this Court’s review is de novo. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Having undertaken that review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly
determined that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against any of the Defendants
upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R&R (Docket No. 32) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30) is hereby GRANTED; and
(3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in a separate document in accordance with Fed. R.

1

Civ. P. 58.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2