Farmer v. Parker et al
Filing
47
ORDER: The Court has reviewed these pleadings and the record de novo and finds that the plaintiffs objections lack merit. Therefore, the plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation 40 is ADOPTED AND APPROVED in all resp ects. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 25 & 27 are hereby GRANTED and the claims against them are DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/4/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) Modified Text on 10/5/2012 (dt).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
KEITH LAMONT FARMER
Plaintiff,
v.
CPL. CHRIS PARKER, et al.
Defendants.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
No. 3:12-0489
Judge Trauger
O R D E R
Presently before the Court are Motions to Dismiss from Sheriff
Daron Hall (Docket Entry No.25) and the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County (Docket Entry No.27), a Report and
Recommendation (Docket Entry No.40) from the Magistrate Judge
urging the Court to grant the Motions, and plaintiff’s timely
objections (Docket Entry No.45) to the Report and Recommendation.
The plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by a guard at the
Davidson
County
Criminal
Justice
Center
without
provocation.
Nowhere in the plaintiff’s recitation of the facts does he mention
either Sheriff Hall or the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County. The plaintiff, therefore, is suggesting that
liability should attach to these defendants based solely upon their
positions as the supervisor and employer of the alleged tortfeasor.
The Magistrate Judge has correctly concluded that Sheriff Hall
and Metro Government can not be held liable for a civil rights
violation in the absence of proof that they at least implicitly
authorized,
approved
or
knowingly
acquiesced
in
the
unconstitutional conduct of an offending subordinate. Bellamy v.
Bradley, 729 F.2d 416,421 (6th Cir.1984). No such proof has been
offered by the plaintiff.
In his objections, the plaintiff claims that these defendants
should be held liable because they failed to adequately train the
alleged tortfeasor in the care and treatment of prisoners. However,
this
assertion
never
appears
in
the
complaint.
Nor
has
the
plaintiff asserted that he was assaulted as a matter of policy,
course or custom.
Accordingly, the Court has reviewed these pleadings and the
record de novo and finds that the plaintiff’s objections lack
merit. Therefore, the plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED AND APPROVED in all respects.
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED and the claims
against them are DISMISSED.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?