Meeks v. Schofield et al

Filing 377

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Because the plaintiff filed what amounts to a blanket objection to the magistrate judge's R&R, the court has conducted a de novo review of the defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having conducted such a review, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that the defendants are entitled to summary ju dgment as to all claims asserted against them in the complaint. The motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 284 ) is therefore GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED. The R&R is adopted insofar as it reaches the same outcome, and the plaintiff's objections to the R&R are overruled. It is so ORDERED. This is a final order for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/31/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DANNY RAY MEEKS
Plaintiff,
v.
DERRICK D. SCHOFIELD et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-545
Judge Trauger

ORDER
Before the court are the plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF
No. 363) issued by Magistrate Judge John Bryant recommending that the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 284) be granted.
Also pending are the defendants’ motion to strike the affidavit of William Shatswell (ECF No.
303); the plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave of the Court to File Comprehensive Amendment Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2) as Justice So Requires,” seeking to supplement the complaint to allege “additional and
continuing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act” (ECF No. 320), as well as two additional
motions asking the court to grant that motion (ECF Nos. 353, 355); and the plaintiff’s “Motion for Court to
Grant Plaintiff a Copy of TDOC/ADA Compliance Guide, Volumes I and II” (ECF No. 356).
The plaintiff has sought repeatedly to amend his complaint, and the present motions reiterate
arguments that have already been rejected. The motion to amend (ECF No. 320) and the additional
motions asking that the court grant that motion (ECF Nos. 353, 355) are DENIED for the reasons stated
in prior orders. The motion for a copy of the ADA Compliance Guide (ECF No. 356) is DENIED as moot.
And the defendants’ motion to strike the declaration of William Shatswell (ECF No. 303) is DENIED the
basis that neither the defendant’s motion nor the attached exhibit is verified.
Because the plaintiff filed what amounts to a blanket objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R, the
court has conducted a de novo review of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having conducted such a
review, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that the

2

defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to all claims asserted against them in the complaint. The
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 284) is therefore GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED. The
R&R is adopted insofar as it reaches the same outcome, and the plaintiff’s objections to the R&R are
overruled.
It is so ORDERED.
This is a final order for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge