Summers v. Williamson County Jail et al

Filing 76

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court rules as follows: The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 65 ) is hereby ACCEPTED, but MODIFIED to show that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defen dants Oliveri, Goodwin, Bevans and Self (Docket No. 33 ) encompasses the claims of all those Defendants and not just Defendant Oliveri. The Motions for Summary Judgments (Docket Nos. 26 , 29 , 31 & 33 are hereby GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/17/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TABITHA LYNN SUMMERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIFFANY TEAGUE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-0173
Judge Sharp

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 65) is hereby ACCEPTED, but
MODIFIED to show that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Oliveri,
Goodwin, Bevans and Self (Docket No. 33) encompasses the claims of all those Defendants and not
just Defendant Oliveri;
(2) Plaintiff’s “Reply to Judge’s Ruling on Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 70) and her
“Amended Response” (Docket No. 72) are construed as Objections and, as such, OVERRULED;
(3) The Motions for Summary Judgments (Docket Nos. 26, 29, 31 & 33 are hereby
GRANTED, including Plaintiff’s claim relating to the opening of legal mail. Therefore, all claims
against Defendants Pater, Self, VandenBosch, Oliveri, Bevans, Roberts, and Goodwin are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(4) The claims against Tiffany Teague will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE upon
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, unless, within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of
this Order, Plaintiff shows good cause for failure to effect service on Ms. Teague as required by

1

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(5) Defendants’ Joint Motion to Ascertain Status or for Clarification (Docket No. 66) is
hereby DENIED AS MOOT; and
(6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Ascertain Status of the Case (Docket No. 57) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
It is SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2