Harbison v. Thompson

Filing 128

ORDER: As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court has reviewed de novo the R&R in light of the plaintiff's objections. Finding no error, the court OVERRULES the plaintiff's objections. The R&R is ACCEPTED. The defendants motion to dismiss 74 is GRANTED, and the claims in theAmended Complaint against defendants Charles Wayne Carpenter and Benjamin F. Bean are DISMISSED. The plaintiff has also filed separate objections 125 to the magistrate judge's order [120 ] denying the plaintiff's "Motion for a Court Order ExParte" 91 . Because the order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, these objections are likewise OVERRULED, and the court declines to modify or set aside that order. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/10/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

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

EDWARD J. HARBISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EVELYN THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-0409
Judge Trauger

ORDER
Before the court is Magistrate Judge John Bryant’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Charles Wayne Carpenter and Benjamin F.
Bean be granted and that the complaint against those two defendants be dismissed (ECF No. 114).
Plaintiff Edward J. Harbison, a prisoner in state custody at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution
(“RMSI”), has filed objections to the R&R. (ECF Nos. 126, 126-1).
As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court has reviewed de novo the R&R
in light of the plaintiff’s objections. Finding no error, the court OVERRULES the plaintiff’s objections. The
R&R is ACCEPTED. The defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED, and the claims in the
Amended Complaint against defendants Charles Wayne Carpenter and Benjamin F. Bean are
DISMISSED.
The plaintiff has also filed separate objections (ECF No. 125) to the magistrate judge’s order
(ECF No. 120) denying the plaintiff’s “Motion for a Court Order ExParte” (ECF No. 91). Because the order
is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, these objections are likewise OVERRULED, and the court
declines to modify or set aside that order.
It is so ORDERED.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge