Cross v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al

Filing 48

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: In view of the parties' agreement, the instant Motion to Stay Discovery 9 should be DENIED AS MOOT with regard to Defendants Metro Government, William Loucks, T. Gene Donegan, and John and/or Jane Does. The Court reserves ruling upon the instant Motion to Stay Discovery as it pertains to Defendant Steve Anderson, pending further filings by Defendant Anderson. See Docket No. 44 , p. 1 n.1. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/8/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

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

JACKIE GILBERT CROSS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
OF NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON
COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 3:12-1109
JUDGE CAMPBELL/KNOWLES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket No.
9), which Judge Campbell has referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation
(Docket No. 16). Defendants have filed a supporting Memorandum of Law. Docket No. 10.
Plaintiff has filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion. Docket No. 22 and a supporting
Affidavit (Docket No. 23). With leave of Court, Defendants have filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s
Response. Docket No. 43.
In a subsequent filing headed “Joint Motion to Amend Case Management Order and
Continue Trial Date” (Docket No. 44), the parties state that they “are in agreement that discovery
shall proceed as to all parties except Defendant Steve Anderson, whose participation in
discovery will depend on this Court’s resolution of his pending Motion to Renew Motion to Stay
Discovery (Docket 38).” Id., p. 1. In view of the parties’ agreement, the instant Motion to Stay
Discovery (Docket No. 9) should be DENIED AS MOOT with regard to Defendants Metro

Government, William Loucks, T. Gene Donegan, and John and/or Jane Does.
The Court reserves ruling upon the instant Motion to Stay Discovery as it pertains to
Defendant Steve Anderson, pending further filings by Defendant Anderson. See Docket No. 44,
p. 1 n.1.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

2