From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freeman v. Troutt

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Nov 29, 2011
Civil No. 3:10-0697 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 3:10-0697.

November 29, 2011.


ORDER


On September 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 128), to which no timely objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is therefore ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Sonya Troutt, Charles Bandy, Alexander Williams, Jeremy Williams, Joey Rush, Kimberly Cherry, Chris Tarlecky and Lance Hampton (Docket No. 107) is DENIED.

The pro se plaintiff has filed another of his many "Motions for Review" (Docket No. 149). Because this motion actually seeks no review of any actions by the Magistrate Judge or by this court, it is DENIED. The plaintiff states that he files motions for review as "the only knowledgeable way to file a responsive pleading of question to perhaps unjust treatment. ..." (Docket No. 149 at 1) The plaintiff is advised that he should label responses to motions as "Response" and should only label something a "Motion For Review" when he is seeking a review of an action by the magistrate judge or by the district judge. His continual filing of motions for review is confusing and a waste of judicial resources.

It is anticipated that, with the final disposition of this Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 107), the Magistrate Judge will now be issuing a revised scheduling order in this case. ( See Docket No. 146)

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Freeman v. Troutt

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Nov 29, 2011
Civil No. 3:10-0697 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Freeman v. Troutt

Case Details

Full title:FREEMAN v. TROUTT

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

Civil No. 3:10-0697 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 29, 2011)

Citing Cases

United Parcel Serv. Co v. DNJ Logistic Group, Inc

(“The imposition of sanctions, or the type of sanctions imposed, is within the sound discretion of the court…

Henschel v. Clare Cnty. Rd. Comm'n

The Court understands it has authority to impose monetary sanctions as well, but emphasizes that Federal Rule…