Plemons, Jr. v. Core Civic Administrative Headquarters et al

Filing 69

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 55) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; Plaintiff's Objection thereto (Doc. No. 66) is OVERRULED; and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 7/1/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DAVID HOPKINS PLEMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORE CIVIC ADMINISTRATIVE
HEADQUARTERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:18-cv-00498

ORDER
Magistrate Judge Frensley has entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 55)
regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Plaintiff filed a 15-page document
that he labels “Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation” (Doc. No. 66). No matter
the title, the document is not a proper objection. Instead of filing “specific written objection to the
proposed findings and recommendation” as required by Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff filed what appears to be verbatim copies of headnotes from cases relating to
such things as discovery, discovery sanctions, Section 1983, and the standards of review for motion
for summary judgment. Interspersed therein, are random allegations of what Plaintiff apparently
believes the proof will ultimately show. None of this suggests how Magistrate Judge Frensley
supposedly erred.
Regardless, having reviewed the matter de novo pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court
agrees with the Report and Recommendation. As Magistrate Judge Frensley correctly observed,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (1) “is a rambling 36 page document that utterly fails to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) or Local Rule 56.01(b)”; (2) “has no supporting Memorandum
of Law”; (3) “fails to cite to the record; and (4) contains no Statement of Undisputed Material Fact

as required by this Court’s Local Rules. (Id. at 4). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 55) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; Plaintiff’s Objection thereto (Doc. No. 66) is
OVERRULED; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE