Harris v. Davidson County Sheriff et al

Filing 189

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 35 Report and Recommendation. Having conducted a de novo review in accordance with Rule 72, the Court will accept thedisposition set forth in the R & R. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R, (Docket No. 35), is ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and (2) Petitioner's claims against Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Granvisse Earl, D. Weikal, B. Bourne, K. Rogers, Sgt. L. Farley, B. Jepson, Sgt. Wright, M. Stephens, f/n/u Young, and John/Jane Doe (dental assistant) are DISMISSED. (3) Petitioner shall have 21 days from the entry of this order to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/3/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
VAUGHN HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-0356
Judge Sharp

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge, (Docket No. 35), recommending that Petitioner’s action be dismissed for failure to state
claims against certain Respondents. Petitioner filed objections to the R & R. (Docket No. 44).
Having undertaken de novo review of the matter in accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Court finds the R & R is correct and properly applies the governing law.
In deciding to approve the R & R, the Court has considered the five “objections” raised
by Petitioner. First, Petitioner argues that “Granvisse Earl and D. Weikal are the superior
officers to the other D.C.S.O. officers that are letting thier [sic] staff violate inmate and detainees
8th and 14th Amendment Rights which is deliberate indifference on thier [sic] part.” (Docket No.
44 at 1). Second, Petitioner argues that “[d]ue to D.C.S.O. staff reprisal [he] needs to amend
[his] complaint to describe Sgt. Wright, M. Stephens, Health S.A., Young and Jane Doe’s
actions.” Id. Third, Petitioner argues that he has “a right to uncontaminated food. [He] will
amend [his] complaint to state [he] was entitled to uncontaminated food that this officer had
made so and refused to replace it as was his duty by officer Jepson because he is a racist like
Farley.” Id. Fourth, Petitioner argues that his “rights to an adequate law library or legal

assistance was denied by these two officers – Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985).
By denying [him] case law research that is required at the D.C.S.O. by the law librarian and the
case manager refusing [him] copies of amended legal forms, notary, and mailing services and
needed info for legal.” Id. at 2. Fifth, Petitioner argues that “Sgt. L. Farley placed [him] back
into S.M.U. Disciplinary isolation 10 minuets [sic] after letting [him] out for no reason, has been
ignored by you the judge in this Recommendation.

His actions amounted to corporal

punishment. [He] spent 10 more days freezing to [sic].” Id.
These “objections” are actually Petitioner’s attempts to amend his complaint, and have
been ruled on previously. In a prior order, Magistrate Judge Brown stated Petitioner “has been
told that if he wishes to amend his complaint he should file a new complaint that is complete in
all details. His continued attempt to amend the complaint piecemeal does not advance his case.”
(Docket No. 63 at 2).

The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s motion to make these

amendments and therefore the Court will not consider them as “objections” to this R & R.
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. 35), is ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and
(2) Petitioner’s claims against Davidson County Sheriff’s Department, Granvisse Earl, D.
Weikal, B. Bourne, K. Rogers, Sgt. L. Farley, B. Jepson, Sgt. Wright, M. Stephens, f/n/u
Young, and John/Jane Doe (dental assistant) are DISMISSED.
(3) Petitioner shall have 21 days from the entry of this order to file an Amended
Complaint.

It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE