Taylor et al v. Harlan et al

Filing 178

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned has submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that five previously-filed separate Motions to Dismiss this action be granted. Docket No. 177 . Defendants' instant Motion raises no new grounds that the prior five Motions did not address. Therefore, the instant Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 171 ) should be DENIED AS MOOT. The instant Motion for an enlargement of time (Docket No. 176 ) should also be DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/24/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

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

ARIANNA TAYLOR, ERIC TAYLOR, )
and GAIL TAYLOR,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CHARLES W. HARLAN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-01363
JUDGE TRAUGER/KNOWLES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon a “Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction,” filed by Defendants on June 30, 2015 (Docket No. 171), and a “Motion for
an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss” filed by Plaintiffs
(Docket No. 176). With their Motion, Defendants have submitted a Memorandum of Law.
Docket No. 172. In their Motion, Plaintiffs seek an enlargement of time until August 31, 2015,
in which to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Docket No. 176.
The undersigned has submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that five
previously-filed separate Motions to Dismiss this action be granted. Docket No. 177.
Defendants’ instant Motion raises no new grounds that the prior five Motions did not address.
Therefore, the instant Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 171) should be DENIED AS
MOOT. The instant Motion for an enlargement of time (Docket No. 176) should also 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