Hodge v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 99

ORDER: The plaintiff's "Respon[se] to Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes Recommendation" 94 (construed as objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation 92 ) is OVERRULED, and the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 68 is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 93 and Motion for Court Order 97 , are DENIED AS MOOT and without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to assert the unrelated new claims in an entirely new action. This is the final Order in this action, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/10/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

MAXWELL M. HODGE, III,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02470
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the court rules as follows on
the pending motions:
(1) The court DECLINES REVIEW of the plaintiff’s “Motion That Era [sic] Was Made
by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes and Needs to Be Corrected by Judge Trauger” (Doc.
No. 91) (construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s Order (Doc. No. 87) denying the
plaintiff’s Motion to Request Production of Documents from Defendants (Doc. No. 85)), on the
basis that it is untimely.
(2)

The

plaintiff’s

“Respon[se]

to

Magistrate

Judge

Barbara

D.

Holmes

Recommendation” (Doc. No. 94) (construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 92)) is OVERRULED, and the court ACCEPTS and
ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. The defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
68) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(3) The plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 93) and Motion
for Court Order (Doc. No. 97), are DENIED AS MOOT and without prejudice to the plaintiff’s

2
ability to assert the unrelated new claims in an entirely new action.
This is the final Order in this action, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 10th day of October 2017.

ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge