Miller v. Hurst et al

Filing 57

ORDER: The plaintiff's Motion to Request Extension of Time to File Response to R&R and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint or for Abstention (Docket No. 52 ) is DENIED IN PART, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file objections to the pending Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 48 ). The remaining part of this motion to extend the deadline to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss is fo r the magistrate judge to rule upon. The Report and Recommendation filed by the magistrate judge on February 16, 2018 (Docket No. 48 ) is ACCEPTED. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants' Joint Motio n to Remand or to Strike (Docket No. 38 ) is GRANTED, and to the extent that the plaintiff has removed state claims from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee, they are hereby REMANDED back to that court. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/12/18. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. Copy mailed to Rutherford County Chancery Clerk ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

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

JACK VICTOR MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH “KENNY” HURST, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:17-cv-00791
Judge Trauger

ORDER
The plaintiff’s Motion to Request Extension of Time to File Response to R&R and
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint or for Abstention (Docket
No. 52) is DENIED IN PART, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file
objections to the pending Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 48). The remaining part of
this motion to extend the deadline to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss is for the
magistrate judge to rule upon.
Because no timely objections have been filed, the Report and Recommendation filed by
the magistrate judge on February 16, 2018 (Docket No. 48) is ACCEPTED and made the
findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is
hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ Joint Motion to Remand or to Strike (Docket No. 38) is
GRANTED, and to the extent that the plaintiff has removed state claims from the Chancery
Court for Rutherford County, Tennessee, they are hereby REMANDED back to that court.

The court notes that, on March 6, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file
Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 53), which has not yet been ruled upon by the
magistrate judge. Despite that, on March 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint (Docket No. 56). This filing has not yet been authorized by the court.
It is hereby ORDERED.
Enter this 12th day of March 2018.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge