Grose v. City of Bartlett, Tennessee Government et al

Filing 88

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 87 Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 3/08/2022. (Parker, Thomas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY T. GROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BARTLETT, TENNESSEE
GOVERNMENT, Keith McDonald, MayorBartlett Police Department (BPD), et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:20-cv-02307-TLP-cgc
JURY DEMAND

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Anthony Grose sued pro se under 42 U.S.C § 1983 alleging that Defendants
violated his civil and constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 9–19.) But the issue here is
that Plaintiff moves for the second time to Amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 80.) Under
Administrative Order No. 2013-05, the Court referred this case to a United States Magistrate
Judge for management and for all pretrial matters. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
(ECF No. 87.) For the reasons below, the Court agrees with the reasoning and the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions. This Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R.
BACKGROUND
I.

Facts of the Case
Bartlett police officers Nick Bramlett and Wesley Wilson stopped Plaintiff while he was

driving a car. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 10.) Plaintiff agreed to submit to a field sobriety test but

then failed it. (Id. at PageID 11.) Plaintiff claimed that the officers then forcefully handcuffed
him, pushed him into a patrol car, and took him to the BPD. (Id. at PageID 11–12.) Later after
the officers placed him in jail, “deputy jailors and the paramedics” informed Plaintiff that they
wanted to take a blood sample. (Id. at PageID 14.) When he refused, they allegedly strapped
Plaintiff to a chair and forcibly drew his blood. (Id.) The BPD released Plaintiff from custody
later that day. (Id. at PageID 15.) A few months later, however, the State charged Plaintiff with
two counts of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and one count of reckless driving.
(ECF No. 35-2 at PageID 365.)
II.

Procedural History
Plaintiff started this suit one year after the alleged incident and asserted four causes of

action related to his treatment. (Id. at PageID 17–19.) In response, State Defendants
successfully moved to dismiss the case against them. 1 (ECF No. 35-1 at PageID 354–57 and
360-61; and ECF No. 82.)
Now Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint but as the Magistrate Judge pointed out
twice, Plaintiff failed to attach a draft of his amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 66, 80, 81.) The
Bartlett defendants responded in opposition to this motion. (ECF No. 83.) The Magistrate Judge
issued a well-reasoned R&R recommending that the Court DENY the motion to amend. (ECF
No. 87.) Neither party objected to the R&R.

1

One theory advocated for dismissal based on improper service, but this Court had addressed the
improper service (ECF No. 49) and State Defendants later elected to waive service of process.
(ECF Nos. 50–51.) State Defendants also argued that if the Court denied the dismissal, it should
abstain from hearing Plaintiff’s claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (ECF No.
35-1 at PageID 361–63.)
2

ADOPTING THE R&R
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “[w]ithin 14 days of being served with a
copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Neither party objected
to the R&R here, and the time for filing objections expired months ago. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2), 6(d), 72(b)(2). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes.
Having reviewed the R&R and the entire record here, the Court finds that the reasoning
and conclusions are correct. This Court thus finds no clear error and ADOPTS the R&R in its
entirety and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of March, 2022.
s/Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3