Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Person v. Roach

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

June 8, 2015

EARMA PERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
ASHLEY ROACH, ET AL., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT LANE SUA SPONTE

JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Earma Person, a resident of Ripley, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil complaint on October 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) She paid the civil filing fee. The named Defendants are Ashley Roach, a Tennessee State Trooper; Lauderdale County, Tennessee; the City of Ripley, Tennessee; Richard Jennings, the Lauderdale County Circuit Court Clerk; Officer Clay Newman, an investigator with Lauderdale County; Pat Lane, an employee of the Bank of Ripley, and the Bank of Ripley. All of the Defendants except for Lane subsequently filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 18 & 19.) Attorney Gerald S. Green filed an appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf on December 29, 2014 (ECF No. 28), and a response to the motions to dismiss was filed on January 5, 2015 (ECF No. 31).[1]

On May 11, 2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing the claims against Defendant Lane sua sponte.[2] (ECF No. 34.) Objections to that Report and Recommendation were due within 14 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). However, Plaintiff has filed no objections.

Magistrate Judge Pham determined the motions to dismiss should be granted, primarily because the complaint is barred by the one-year limitations period for civil rights claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(3). Having reviewed the complaint and the law, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. The entire complaint clearly is time-barred, and Plaintiff has offered no reasons why the statute of limitations should be tolled. Therefore, the R&R is ADOPTED. All of the pending motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant Lane are also DISMISSED sua sponte.

The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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