Murdock v. Bruce et al

Filing 100

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Having conducted a de novo review in accordance with Rule 72, the Court will accept the disposition set forth in the R & R. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R (Docket No. 97 ) is hereb y ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 84 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Strike (Docket No. 90 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/7/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
MARSHALL H. MURDOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATSY BRUCE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:12-cv-1244
Judge Sharp

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge (Docket No. 97), recommending that Plaintiff Marshall H. Murdock’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 84) be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.01. The
R & R also recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 90) be denied as moot.
Plaintiff has not objected to the R & R.
Where no objections are made to the R & R, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Having conducted a de novo review in accordance with Rule 72, the Court will accept the
disposition set forth in the R & R. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 97) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 84) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
(3) Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 90) is DENIED AS MOOT.

1

It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2