Russell et al v. Richardson et al

Filing 181

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court hereby ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation 152 and makes it the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant R ichardson's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 131 ) is DENIED and defendant Richardson's Motion for Relief From Order (Docket No. 135 ) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Correct Application for Leave to Pr oceed In forma Pauperis (Docket No. 144 ) is GRANTED, in so far as the application may be amended, but it is DENIED in so far as the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. This case shall be returned to the magistrate judge for further han dling under the original referral order. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/11/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb) Modified text on 8/12/2016 (hb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ED RUSSELL doing business as
Alley Roads Music BMI,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES A RICHARDSON, JR., ET AL.,
Defendants

Civil No. 3:14-cv-01555
Judge Trauger
Magistrate Judge Brown

ORDER
On June 8, 2016, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (DE #152),
to which defendant Richardson has objected in part (Docket No. 178), and the plaintiff has
responded to the objection (Docket No. 180).
Defendant Richardson argues that his Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 131), based upon
the filing of an inaccurate application to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted. When a
party files objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation regarding a dispositive
motion, the district judge must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation to
which objections are properly lodged. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C).
In conducting its review, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The court has conducted a de novo review of defendant Richardson’s objection, the
Report and Recommendation and the pertinent parts of the record and finds that the magistrate
judge’s recommendation is factually sound and legally correct. The defendant’s objection is
therefore OVERRULED.

The court hereby ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation and makes it the findings
of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant Richardson’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 131) is DENIED and
defendant Richardson’s Motion for Relief From Order (Docket No. 135) is DENIED. It is
further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Application for Leave to Proceed In
forma Pauperis (Docket No. 144) is GRANTED, in so far as the application may be amended,
but it is DENIED in so far as the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.
This case shall be returned to the magistrate judge for further handling under the original
referral order.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 11th day of August 2016.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge