Fisher v. United States Marshal Service et al

Filing 40

ORDER: Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the applicable law, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff's objection and accepts and approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for the reasons set forth therein a nd above. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for temporary restraining order and injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 8, 14) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 12/11/14. (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

JOHN FISHER, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-cv-01795
Chief Judge Sharp

ORDER
In this case brought by a federal pre-trial detainee1 complaining of violations of his constitutional
rights in the Robertson County Detention Center, the Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry No. 23) recommending that Plaintiff’s various motions for
immediate injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 8, 14) be denied. Plaintiff has filed a timely objection to
the R & R. (Docket Entry No. 32.)
Plaintiff’s motions, filed while he was housed at the Robertson County Detention Center, sought a
transfer to a facility in Grayson, Kentucky, for the purpose of accessing allegedly superior health care and
legal resources (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 14), and an order requiring “defendants to carry out a plan of
reasonable treatment” of Plaintiff’s alleged medical conditions. (Docket Entry No. 8, at 4.) The Magistrate
Judge points out that after Plaintiff filed his motions, he was transferred to the Criminal Justice Center
(“CJC”) in Davidson County, Tennessee, which is confirmed by the return address on the envelope
containing Plaintiff’s objection. (See Docket Entry No. 32, at 7.)

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge

concludes that Plaintiff’s request for a transfer and for an order requiring the defendant health care
providers at the Robertson County Detention Center to provide treatment should be denied as moot.
Plaintiff acknowledges in his objection that his requests for transfer are moot. (Docket Entry No.
32, at 4.) While he complains vaguely about lack of medical care, inadequate legal resources and an
inmate assault at his current place of confinement, his allegations are too lacking in specifics to state a
claim, much less support preliminary injunctive relief. Moreover, Plaintiff has not named anyone at CJC
1

The Court notes that since this action was filed, Plaintiff has pleaded guilty and is now awaiting
sentencing. See Docket Entry No. 100, United States of America v. John Fisher, No. 3:13-cr-00091.

as being responsible for his perceived mistreatment or moved to amend his complaint to incorporate any
claims against them.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the applicable law, the Court hereby
overrules Plaintiff’s objection and accepts and approves the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation for the reasons set forth therein and above.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for

temporary restraining order and injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 8, 14) are DENIED as moot.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s objection also contains one page devoted to his “appeal that
RCDC and the US Marshal Service be removed from this case.” (Docket Entry No. 32, at 2.) The Court
construes this plea as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order on initial review of this action dismissing
Plaintiff’s claims against the Robertson County Jail and the United States Marshals Service. (See Docket
Entry No. 19.) For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum accompanying that Order (Docket Entry No.
18), neither of those entities is a proper defendant to this action, and Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is
DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Kevin H. Sharp, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2