Lackey v. Tennessee Corrections Institute et al

Filing 61

ORDER adopting in part Report and Recommendations: After reviewing the pleadings and the record, and considering the plaintiff's specific Objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's an alysis and recommendation that the plaintiff's first, second, fifth, and sixth proposed amendments to the complaint should not be permitted. Therefore, as to those proposed amendments, the plaintiff's Objections are overruled, and the R&R is ADOPTED AND APPROVED. However, as to the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation as to the plaintiff's third, fourth, and seventh proposed amendments to the complaint, the R&R is hereby REJECTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/9/16. (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
DAVID D. LACKEY,
No. 00490308,
Plaintiff,
v.
TENNESSEE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-cv-00843
Judge Trauger

ORDER
On December 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
(Docket No. 51) as to the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint filed on October 1, 2015
(Docket No. 18), recommending that the motion be denied. Pending before the court are Objections
to the R&R timely filed by the plaintiff. (Docket No. 59).
After reviewing the pleadings and the record, and considering the plaintiff’s specific
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and
recommendation that the plaintiff’s first, second, fifth, and sixth proposed amendments to the
complaint should not be permitted. Therefore, as to those proposed amendments, the plaintiff’s
Objections are overruled, and the R&R is ADOPTED AND APPROVED.
However, as to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation as to the plaintiff’s
third, fourth, and seventh proposed amendments to the complaint, the R&R is hereby REJECTED.
Therefore, the plaintiff may amend his complaint to assert the following claims: a claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, for discriminating against a qualified individual

1

with a disability (third proposed amendment), a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection as a disabled inmate (fourth proposed
amendment), and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment to equal protection as male inmate (seventh proposed amendment).
It is so ORDERED.

Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

2