MESSNER v. HICKMAN COUNTY, 1-11-0059. (2013)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20130711d72
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 67), Objections filed by the Plaintiff in the form of a Motion for De Novo Determination and Supporting Memorandum (Docket Nos. 68 and 69) 1 and Defendant Cloud's Response thereto (Docket No. 70). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objectio
Summary: ORDER TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 67), Objections filed by the Plaintiff in the form of a Motion for De Novo Determination and Supporting Memorandum (Docket Nos. 68 and 69) 1 and Defendant Cloud's Response thereto (Docket No. 70). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objection..
More
ORDER
TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 67), Objections filed by the Plaintiff in the form of a Motion for De Novo Determination and Supporting Memorandum (Docket Nos. 68 and 69)1 and Defendant Cloud's Response thereto (Docket No. 70).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, the Response, and the file. Plaintiff's Objections are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No.67) is adopted and approved.
This case is in a different posture, with a different standard and different evidence before the Court than on Plaintiff's previous Motion to Amend. Defendant Cloud's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 52) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Cloud are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's Motion for De Novo Determination (Docket No. 68) is GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
