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.

Olivier v. Jones

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville

March 2, 2018

MARDOCHE OLIVIER, Plaintiff
v.
KEITH JONES; JT KNOBLOCK, Clarksville Police Officers, Defendants

          HONORABLE ALETA A. TRAUGER

          ORDER

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOE B. BROWN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Presently pending is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 18). For the reasons stated below the Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed with prejudice and the Defendants be allowed to seek their reasonable costs other than attorneys' fees from the Clerk. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that any appeal from a dismissal in this case in forma pauperis not be certified as taken in good faith.

         BACKGROUND

         As an initial matter the Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for summary judgment or to the statement of undisputed material facts (Docket Entry 19). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge, after reviewing the statement of undisputed material facts to insure that there are appropriate citations for the statement, will adopt them inasmuch as they are unopposed.

         The memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 20) has set forth in pages 1 through 5 an accurate summary of the proceedings in this case, in both state and federal court. The summary need not be repeated verbatim. It is sufficient to note that the incident the Plaintiff complained of occurred on June 1, 2015. The Plaintiff filed a complaint in Montgomery County Circuit Court against the same two police officers involved in the present federal litigation on August 11, 2016.

         In his state court complaint Plaintiff alleged that Officers Keith Jones and J.T. Knoblock violated his civil rights under Section 1983. As noted in the Defendants' memorandum and Docket Entry 19-3 the state court action was subsequently dismissed by the circuit judge on November 17, 2016, on five separate grounds. The third ground was that the Plaintiff failed to allege essential elements of his claims, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also held that the one-year statute of limitations barred his civil rights claim.

         Following this dismissal the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which issued a decision (Docket Entry 19-5) on August 17, 2017. The Court's summary of the proceedings is set out verbatim below.

This action arises out of an alleged violation of the plaintiff's civil rights by the City of Clarksville (“the City”) and a group of police officers employed by the City (“the Officers”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The plaintiff was arrested on June 1, 2015, for driving on a revoked or suspended license, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-504 (2012), and making a 911 telephone call in a nonemergency situation, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-86- 316 (2015). The plaintiff filed a complaint on August 11, 2016, alleging that as a result of his arrest, the Officers caused him to suffer damages from false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, malicious harassment, outrageous conduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and inverse condemnation. The plaintiff also alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2016, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claims were statutorily barred due to the immunity granted to Defendants by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205 (2012). The trial court entered a final order regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 17, 2016, granting the motion and dismissing all claims. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

         The record does not reflect that the Plaintiff sought or secured permission for an appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

         LEGAL DISCUSSION

         In resolving the motion for summary judgment the Magistrate Judge has applied the well-known Anderson v, Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) and has carefully reviewed the record to see if there is a factual dispute over material facts, which would preclude summary judgment.

         The Magistrate Judge has also reviewed the matter giving the pro se plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. The Plaintiff has had difficulty keeping up with his pleadings (see Docket Entries 13 and 17). The Plaintiff was cautioned about ...


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.