Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WASHINGTON v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 3-13-0113. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20140418854 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 94) and an Objection filed by the Plaintiff (Docket No. 96). 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, and the file. The Objection of the Plaintiff is overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defen
More

ORDER

TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 94) and an Objection filed by the Plaintiff (Docket No. 96).

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, and the file. The Objection of the Plaintiff is overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 72) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Any other pending Motions are denied as moot.

As stated in the Report and Recommendation, to the extent Plaintiff's Objection could be construed as a Notice of Appeal, any appeal is not certified as taken in good faith. In an abundance of caution, the Clerk shall docket the Objection as also being a Notice of Appeal.

This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

IT IS 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