Cunningham v. McDonald et al

Filing 72

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 58 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Craig Cunningham. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion (Docket No. 58) should be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/3/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHY MCDONALD et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-00215
Judge Sharp/Knowles

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon a document filed by Plaintiff headed “Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions per Rule 11.” Docket No. 58. Plaintiff avers that a Declaration filed by
Defendant Kathy McDonald (Docket No. 39-1) contains a number of false statements.
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a supporting memorandum of law as
required by Local Rule 7.01(a).
Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) provides in relevant part:
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made
separately from any other motion and must describe the specific
conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be
served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or presented to the
court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial
is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after
service or within another time the court sets.
Plaintiff has made no effort to show that he complied with the “safe harbor” provision of
Rule 11.
Finally, the Declaration at issue was submitted in support of a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants. Docket No. 39, 39-1. The Court has recently denied that Motion to Dismiss.
Docket No. 71.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motion (Docket No. 58) should be DENIED.
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