Abdullah v. Wilson et al, No. 3:2010cv01076 - Document 174 (M.D. Tenn. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER: For the reasons expressed in the Report and Recommendation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, their Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 68) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order constitutes the final judgment in this case. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/14/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

Download PDF
Abdullah v. Wilson et al Doc. 174 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION LUQMAN ABDULLAH, a/k/a Terry Douglas, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. COREY WILSON and MATT DIXSON, Defendants. Civil No. 3:10-1076 Judge Trauger Magistrate Judge Brown ORDER On February 19, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 166), to which the plaintiff has filed objections (Docket No. 173). The Report and Recommendation recommends that the Motion For Summary Judgment filed by the defendants be granted. When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; an objection to the report in general is not sufficient and will result in waiver of further review. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). In his objections, the plaintiff takes issue with some of the events at the evidentiary hearing conducted before the Magistrate Judge and objects to some of the findings of fact made by the Magistrate Judge. However, none of these objections go to the heart of the evidence 1 Dockets.Justia.com supporting the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the defendants had probable cause to search the plaintiff’s vehicle without a warrant and that his Fourth Amendment rights were not thereby violated. For the reasons expressed in the Report and Recommendation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, their Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 68) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order constitutes the final judgment in this case. Enter this 14th day of March 2014. ________________________________ ALETA A. TRAUGER U.S. District Judge 2

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.