United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief United States
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Brown United States Magistrate Judge.
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
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
some difficulty in obtaining service on Sheriff Hall (DE 9),
service was subsequently obtained on all Defendants.
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.
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.
the date of this Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has
not responded in any way to the motion.
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.
Standard of Review
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.