Green v. Howard et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 82 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 36 ) is hereby GRANTED; (3) All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 65 , 67 , 70 , 74 and 77 ) are hereby TERMINATED as moot; and (4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate do cument in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 4/15/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMIE CHRISTOPHER GREEN, #151209, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES SIMMONS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:13-cv-020
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Bryant

ORDER
In this case brought by a former inmate of the Charles Bass Correctional Complex,
Magistrate Judge Bryant has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry
No. 82), recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 36)
be granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice.1
The R & R provides, in part,
. . . contrary to Green’s claims, Green did not receive a materially worse
punishment for his disciplinary violation when compared to punishment imposed
upon inmate [David] Wallace. Moreover, there is no admissible evidence in this
record to support the claims that Defendant Howard accepted bribes or “pay outs”
from inmates subject to disciplinary proceedings, or that Defendant Simmons had
knowledge of such practices.
Based upon the admissible evidence in this record, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
Defendants Howard and Simmons are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
***
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that
the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Howard and
Simmons be GRANTED, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

1

The Court has already dismissed all claims except claims against Defendants Sheila Howard and
Charles Simmons alleging violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See (Docket Entry No. 11).
1

(Docket Entry No. 82 at 5-6). A response in opposition was filed to the R & R.2
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 for the above-mentioned reasons of the
Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 82) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 36) is hereby
GRANTED;
(3) All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 65, 67, 70, 74 and 77) are hereby
TERMINATED as moot; and
(4) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on March 20, 2014, more
than ten (10) months after Defendant’s motion was filed. See (Docket Entry No. 94). Pursuant to the
Scheduling Order entered on April 29, 2013, all dispositive motions were to be filed by September 23,
2013, and responses were due by October 23, 2013. See (Docket Entry No. 34). Therefore, the Court
will not consider Plaintiff’s response because it is untimely.
2