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.

Taylor v. D.C.S.O.

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

November 15, 2019

SETH TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
D.C.S.O., ET AL., Defendant.

          Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief United States District Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Joe B. Brown United States Magistrate Judge.

         For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 34) be granted and this case be dismissed with prejudice and any appeal not be certified as taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1915(a)(3).

         I. Background

         The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Davidson County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Hall and Warden Harold Taylor on October 11, 2017. (DE 1). He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 2). On initial review (DE 4), the application to proceed IFP was approved. Claims against the Davidson County Sheriff's Office were dismissed, and the matter was referred to me for case management and for disposition of any dispositive motions.

         After some difficulty in obtaining service on Sheriff Hall (DE 9), service was subsequently obtained on all Defendants.

         Subsequently, Sheriff Hall filed a Motion to Dismiss claims against him in an individual capacity (DE 15) on June 22, 2018. On the same date, the undersigned entered an pointing out that the Plaintiff was required to respond to the motion and that failure to do so could result in the motion being granted. The Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion on July 5, 2018. Defendant Taylor was finally served on June 29, 2018 and filed a Motion to Dismiss (DE 21) on July 20, 2018. The Defendant did not respond to this Motion to Dismiss and on September 4, 2018 (DE 23) the undersigned entered an Order pointing the failure to respond out to the Plaintiff and once again noting that failure to respond to a motion could result in it being granted. Subsequently, the Plaintiff did respond (DE 26) on September 21, 2018. A Report and Recommendation was submitted (DE 29) on January 15, 2019, recommending all claims against Sheriff Hall and Warden Taylor in their individual capacities be granted and the Metropolitan Government of Davidson County (Metro) be substituted as the sole defendant in this case since the claims against Sheriff Hall and Warden Taylor in their official capacities were in essence claims against Metro. That Report and Recommendation was subsequently adopted (DE 33) and the Clerk was directed to add Metro as the remaining defendant in this case.

         It does not appear that a formal scheduling order was entered following the adoption of the Report and Recommendation. The next activity in the case was a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Metro on September 19, 2019 (DE 34). This motion was supported by memorandum of law and a statement of undisputed material facts ¶ 35 and 36.

         As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has not responded in any way to the motion.

         II. Legal Discussion

         Even though the Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the Motion, the undersigned has nevertheless reviewed the record to determine if the Motion is supported in law and fact.

         III. Standard of Review

         The Court has applied the well-known standards set forth in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Summary Judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the initial responsibility for informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Once the movement has met the burden, responsibility shifts to the non-moving party to make a sufficient showing of the existence of an essential element to the party's case.

         IV. ...


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.