Primm v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Upon review of this matter, the Court finds the Report to be well-founded and ADOPTS it in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 12 ), DIRECTS the Clerk to i ssue summons for Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction, and DIRECTS the Clerk to serve a summons and a copy of the amended complaint to Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 3/17/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh) Modified on 3/18/2016 (eh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CAROLYN PRIMM,
Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-cv-00230
Judge Nixon
Magistrate Judge Bryant
JURY DEMAND

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Insufficient Service
of Process (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 12.) On February 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bryant issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the Motion denied, that the Clerk be directed to issue
summons for Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction, and that a summons and a copy of the amended
complaint be served upon Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction by the U.S. Marshal. (Doc. No. 17 at
3.) The Report provided a period of fourteen days in which any party could file an objection. (Id.) No party
has filed an objection to date.
Upon review of this matter, the Court finds the Report to be well-founded and ADOPTS it in its
entirety. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion (Doc. No. 12), DIRECTS the Clerk to
issue summons for Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction, and DIRECTS the Clerk to serve a
summons and a copy of the amended complaint to Defendant Tennessee Department of Correction.
Additionally, as Judge Bryant noted, it appears that on May 13, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4.) Therefore, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to
remove Doc. No. 2 as pending.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered this the 17th day of March, 2016.
________________________________
JOHN T. NIXON, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT