Hamby v. Gentry et al
Filing
90
ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 78) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED. The (Dual) Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] in Favor of Plaintiff (Docket Entry No. 49) shall be DENIED. All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 31, 46, 57 and 68) are hereby DENIED as moot. This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/17/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM DAVISON HAMBY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BETH GENTRY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:12-cv-01296
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Bryant
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending that the (Dual) Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] in Favor of Plaintiff
(Docket Entry No. 49) be denied. No objection has been filed to the R & R.1
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the applicable law in accordance
with Rule 72(b), the Court will accept the R & R.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 78) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) The (Dual) Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] in Favor of Plaintiff (Docket Entry
No. 49) shall be DENIED; and
(3) All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 31, 46, 57 and 68) are hereby DENIED as
moot.
This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in
accordance with Local Rule 16.01.
1
A certified copy of the R & R was delivered and signed for on August 28, 2014. See (Docket Entry
Nos. 79 and 84).
1
It is SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?