Williams v. Carpenter et al
Filing
58
ORDER: The R & R (Docket No. 54 ) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED; Defendant Messenger's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34 ) is GRANTED; Defendants Carpenter's, Slayman's, and Messenger's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 40 ) is GRA NTED; and (4) Plaintiffs' "Motions to Keep Defendants On Case" (Docket Nos. 42 & 48 ) are DENIED. This case is returned to Magistrate Judge Knowles Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/30/15. (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
DANIEL LAMONT WILLIAMS #398170,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN WAYNE CARPENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:14-01812
Judge Sharp
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report & Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 54) which
recommends that Defendant Messenger’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) (Docket No. 34) be granted, and that Defendants Carpenter’s, Messenger’s and Slayman’s
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 40) for failure to exhaust remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) also be
granted. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in accordance with Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with the recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Court
rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 54) is ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Defendant Messenger’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34) is GRANTED;
(3) Defendants Carpenter’s, Slayman’s, and Messenger’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 40) is
GRANTED; and
(4) Plaintiffs’ “Motions to Keep Defendants On Case” (Docket Nos. 42 & 48) are DENIED.
This case is returned to Magistrate Judge Knowles.
It is SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?