Shabazz v. Schofield et al

Filing 492

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 315) should be DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 2/27/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

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

OMOWALE ASHANTI SHABAZZ,
Plaintiff,

vs.

DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 3:13-00091
JUDGE SHARP/KNOWLES
JURY DEMAND

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se prisoner Plaintiff’s “Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment Against Defendant Jerry Lester.” Docket No. 315. Plaintiff has filed a
supporting Memorandum (Docket No. 316), a Statement of Undisputed Facts (Docket No. 317),
and his own Declaration (Docket No. 318).
The instant Motion and supporting documents were filed August 14, 2014. Shortly
thereafter, on August 20, 2014, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an “Amended and
Supplemental Verified Complaint” (Docket No. 323). The instant Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment was necessarily directed to the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint as it existed
at the time (Docket No. 15), and not to the Amended and Supplemental Verified Complaint
(Docket No. 323).
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No.
315) should be DENIED AS MOOT.

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