Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BUCKLEY v. CCA/METRO DAVIDSON COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY, 3:13-1117. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20140410d43 Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER JULIET GRIFFIN, Magistrate Judge. By Order entered March 14, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 46), the Court directed Defendant CCA to provide to the Court, under seal, the last known home address of Michael Sullivan since Mr. Sullivan no longer appears to be employed by CCA. On March 28, 2014, CCA filed a notice complying with this order. See Docket Entry Nos. 53 and 54. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to re-issue process to Michael Sullivan at the address provided by CCA. The summons and M
More

ORDER

JULIET GRIFFIN, Magistrate Judge.

By Order entered March 14, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 46), the Court directed Defendant CCA to provide to the Court, under seal, the last known home address of Michael Sullivan since Mr. Sullivan no longer appears to be employed by CCA. On March 28, 2014, CCA filed a notice complying with this order. See Docket Entry Nos. 53 and 54. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to re-issue process to Michael Sullivan at the address provided by CCA. The summons and Marshal Form — 285 shall be maintained UNDER SEAL, and the Marshal shall file the return of service UNDER SEAL.

Also before the Court is a motion (Docket Entry No. 50) filed by the pro se prisoner plaintiff in this action, to which the Defendants have filed a response (Docket Entry No. 56) in opposition. The motion actually consists of a laundry lists of distinct "motions" from the plaintiff totaling approximately eight separate requests among the ten pages of the motion. The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's filing and cannot discern anything in the filings that warrants an Order from the Court. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The plaintiff's requests for summary judgment is procedurally deficient and unsupported. To the extent that the plaintiff requests "discovery," any discovery requests should be sent to the opposing party and not be sent to the Court.

Any party desiring to appeal this Order may do so by filing a motion for review no later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is served upon the party. The motion for review must be accompanied by a brief or other pertinent documents to apprise the District Judge of the basis for appeal. See Rule 72.02(b) of the Local Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer