Reid v. Metro Police Department of Nashville et al, No. 3:2009cv00668 - Document 31 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 27 , to which no Objs have been filed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. A ccordingly, Defts' Motion to Dismiss 12 is GRANTED, and all claims against Defts Metro Police Department, Shearon and Jones are DISMISSED with prejudice. All claims against Deft Tester are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 12/29/09. (reg & cert mail to pro se parties) (tmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Reid v. Metro Police Department of Nashville et al Doc. 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION KEVA REID v. METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT OF NASHVILLE, et al. ) ) ) NO. 3:09-0668 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL ) ) ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 27), to which no Objections have been filed.1 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendants Metro Police Department, Shearon and Jones are DISMISSED with prejudice.2 All claims against Defendant Tester are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ TODD J. CAMPBELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 The record reflects that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation on December 9, 2009. Docket No. 29. 2 The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant Taylor, named in the Complaint, was a typographical error. Docket No. 27, n.1. In addition, the record reflects that Officer Taylor was never served and is, therefore, not before the Court. Docket No. 11. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
