Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Watson v. Cobb

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

January 13, 2015

CANDACE WATSON, Plaintiff,
v.
LEWIS L COBB, Individually in his official capacity as attorney for City of Jackson, TN, John/Jane Doe c/o/ Lewis L. Cobb, Jr. esq. legal assistants/paralegals for Lewis L. Cobb, Jr. Esq., individually in his/her official capacity, Defendants

Candace Watson, Plaintiff, Pro se, Jackson, TN.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Edward G. Bryant, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On February 12, 2014, the Pro Se Plaintiff filed this instant complaint, alleging, inter alia, violations against her relating to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq, the 4th, 5th, 11th, and 13th Amendments of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12188, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42 U.S.C. § 1986.

This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin. Order 2013-05, April 29, 2013.)

BACKGROUND

The Court will use the Court of Appeals of Tennessee's description of the case:

On November 17, 2008, Plaintiff/Appellant Candace Watson filed a complaint against the Defendant/Appellee City of Jackson (" the City") for injuries she allegedly sustained while employed by the City. According to her complaint, while working in a City building, Ms. Watson was injured when she slipped and fell on a recently waxed floor. Ms. Watson alleged that the fall caused her neck, back, leg, and arm pain, which continued at the time of the filing of the complaint.
The City filed an answer on January 16, 2009, specifically raising the defenses of contributory negligence and comparative fault. . . .
On December 27, 2012, the City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the undisputed evidence showed that there was no hazardous condition on the floor, until after Ms. Watson left work on the day of the alleged incident. Specifically, the City argued that Ms. Watson had alleged that a hazardous condition existed because City staff was waxing the floor prior to her departure; however, deposition testimony allegedly undisputedly showed that no waxing took place until after Ms. Watson left for the day. The City also argued that the evidence showed that if there was any negligence on the part of the City, the evidence nevertheless undisputedly showed that the negligence of Ms. Watson made her more than fifty percent responsible for her injuries, precluding recovery. Ms. Watson filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment on January 23, 2013. In her response, Ms. Watson denied that the undisputed facts entitled the City to judgment in its favor. On February 15, 2013, the trial court denied the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding a dispute as to the material facts in the case.
A trial was held on March 8, 2013. Ms. Watson testified on her own behalf. ... [O]n May 14, 2013, the trial entered its final judgment in favor of the City. The trial court also entered an order awarding the City discretionary costs.

Watson v. City of Jackson No. W2013-01364-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 4202466 (Tenn.Ct.App., Aug. 26, 2014) quoting Watson v. City of Jackson, 448 S.W.3d 919, 2014 WL 575915 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2014)

Plaintiff appealed the case twice to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The Court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.