Tarvin v. Lindamood

M.D. Tennessee

Tarvin v. Lindamood

DecidedJanuary 13, 2025

Docket1:18-cv-00025

StatusUnknown

This text of Tarvin v. Lindamood (Tarvin v. Lindamood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tarvin v. Lindamood, (M.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

COREY TARVIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 1:18-cv-00025 v. ) ) JUDGE RICHARDSON CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF ) AMERICA d/b/a CORECIVIC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 270), recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 237, “Motion”). No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time for filing objections has now expired.1 The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Prop. Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150); Benson v. Walden Sec.,

1 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro-se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff, the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported by mail. But even this extension does not help Plaintiff because the R&R was filed on December 20, 2024 and as of January 6, 2025 Plaintiff has not filed any objections. No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Ashraf, 322 F. Supp at 881 (citing Thomas, 474 USS. at 151). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and the file. The R&R is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion at Doc. No. 237 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs claims against John Doe Defendants and Officer Simons, and Plaintiffs claims in Counts I, I, IN, and TV are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs first amendment retaliation claims against Defendants CoreCivic and Shawn Phillips in Count V remain PENDING. IT IS SO ORDERED. ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

COREY TARVIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 1:18-cv-00025 v. ) ) JUDGE RICHARDSON CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF ) AMERICA d/b/a CORECIVIC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 270), recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 237, “Motion”). No objections to the R&R have been filed, and the time for filing objections has now expired.1 The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Prop. Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150); Benson v. Walden Sec.,

1 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro-se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff, the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported by mail. But even this extension does not help Plaintiff because the R&R was filed on December 20, 2024 and as of January 6, 2025 Plaintiff has not filed any objections. No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Ashraf, 322 F. Supp at 881 (citing Thomas, 474 USS. at 151). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and the file. The R&R is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion at Doc. No. 237 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs claims against John Doe Defendants and Officer Simons, and Plaintiffs claims in Counts I, I, IN, and TV are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs first amendment retaliation claims against Defendants CoreCivic and Shawn Phillips in Count V remain PENDING. IT IS SO ORDERED. ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tarvin v. Lindamood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarvin-v-lindamood-tnmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack