Harris v. Davidson County Sheriff et al

Filing 138

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 135 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/17/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
VAUGHN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:15-cv-0356
Judge Sharp

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge (Docket No. 111), recommending that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be granted in part
and denied in part.
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on June 18, 2015.

(Docket No. 36.)

On

September 8, 2015, Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
(“Metro”) moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s non-dental claims in this case,1 arguing that
Plaintiff failed to allege any municipal liability claim against Metro. On October 1, 2015,
Defendants Debra Dixon, Beth Gentry, Tim Hindsley, Charles Hope, Brandi Moore, and
Beatrice Aluoch moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against them. (Docket No. 74.)
Plaintiff filed a response to the Motions to Dismiss on October 19, 2015. (Docket No. 103.)
On December 11, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered an R & R on Defendants’ Motions.
The R & R recommended that (1) Metro’s Partial Motion to Dismiss be granted; (2) Defendant
Moore’s Motion to Dismiss be granted; and (3) Defendants Dixon, Gentry, Hindsley, Hope, and
Aluoch’s Motion to Dismiss be granted as to the claims against them in their official capacities
1

Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim arose out of dental injuries that he suffered while in custody. Metro has filed
an Answer to these claims. (Docket No. 99.)

1

and denied as to the claims against them in their individual capacities. Neither party has
objected to the R & R.
Where no objections are made to the R & R, “[t]he district judge 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).
Having conducted a de novo review in accordance with Rule 72, the Court will accept the
disposition set forth in the R & R. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 111) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Defendant Metro’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(Docket No. 97) is GRANTED;
(3) Defendant Moore’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Docket
No. 74) is GRANTED;
(4 )Defendants Deborah Dixon, Beth Gentry, Tim Hindsley, Charles Hope, and
Beatrice Aluoch’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Docket No. 74)
is GRANTED as to the claims against them in their official capacities, but
DENIED as to the claims against them in their individual capacities.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2