Shabazz v. Schofield et al

Filing 656

ORDER: (1) Plaintiff's Objections (Docket Nos. 501, 502, 537, 635 & 677) are OVERRULED; (2) The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 608) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 245) is hereby DENIED. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/11/16. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
OMOWALE ASHANTI SHABAZZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-00091
Judge Sharp

ORDER

As a housekeeping matter, Plaintiff’s Objection (Docket No. 502) to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 490) is denied, as the underlying subject was addressed in
this Court’s April 16, 2015 Order (Docket No. 539). Further, that Objection, as well as his Objection
(Docket No. 537) seeking a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Docket No. 524), are subject to
being denied because, after their filing, counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff and the Magistrate
Judge entered an Order (Docket No. 607) denying the pending Motions filed by Plaintiff.
In the April 16, 2015 Order, the Court returned Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to the
Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Since then, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 608) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Injunction
(Docket No. 245) be denied. Plaintiff has filed an Objection (Docket No. 635) to that Report and
Recommendation, as well as to other Orders of the Magistrate Judge. However, because counsel has
been appointed to represent Plaintiff at his request, filings are to be made by counsel. Moreover, the
Court has undertaken review of the Report and Recommendation in accordance with Rule 72 of the

1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and agrees that the requested injunctive relief should be denied.
Counsel on behalf of Plaintiff has filed a Limited Objection (Docket No. 637) to the Magistrate
Judge’s Order (Docket No. 607) insofar as it denied Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motions (Docket
No. 428, 450, 454, 458, 462, 466, 551,556). The Magistrate Judge denied those Motions in light of
the fact that counsel has been appointed for Plaintiff. The Court cannot say that decision was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Moreover, in response to the first Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and, as a part of
that Motion, requested that Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment be denied. As for the
others, counsel for Defendants has confessed error in failing to respond due to the sheer volume of
filings in this case. While that confession does not excuse the failure to timely respond, even a casual
perusal of Plaintiff’s pro se Motions suggest that some are not well taken and it is best to decide this
case on the merits, rather than on what effectively would be a default.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s Objections (Docket Nos. 501, 502, 537, 635 & 677) are OVERRULED;
(2) The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 608) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 245) is hereby DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2