From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nesbitt v. Wilkin Tipton, P.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 27, 2012
No. 3:11-cv-0574 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 27, 2012)

Opinion

No. 3:11-cv-0574

07-27-2012

EMILY NESBITT, ALICE STANLEY, and JESSICA ADAIR, Plaintiffs, v. WILKIN TIPTON, P.A., Defendant.


Judge Sharp

Magistrate Judge Knowles


ORDER

Plaintiffs Emily Nesbitt, Alice Stanley, and Jessica Adair filed a Complaint against Defendant Wilkin Tipton, P.A., wherein they allege violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. 4-21-101 et seq.

On February 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Additional Defendants, requesting an Order allowing Joseph Wilkins ("Wilkins") and G.W. Flinn ("Flinn"), who are members of the defendant law firm, Wilkins Tipton, P.A. (Docket Entry No. 29). In support of said motion, Plaintiffs claim that after complaining to the Jackson, Mississippi office of Defendant, both Flinn and Wilkins committed acts, which amount to aiding and abetting of the sexually hostile work environment.

Magistrate Judge Knowles entered a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on March 29, 2012, denying the motion. Plaintiffs filed a timely objection to the R & R on April 5, 2012, to which Defendant filed a response. See (Docket Entry Nos. 50 and 52).

Because the Magistrate Judge's Order does not pertain to a dispositive motion, this Court's review is limited to whether it "is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the applicable law and concludes that the Magistrate Judge was correct in recommending that the Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Additional Defendants filed on behalf of Plaintiffs (Docket Entry No. 29) be denied.

Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 44) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; and

(2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Additional Defendants (Docket Entry No. 29) is hereby DENIED.

This action is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01.

It is SO ORDERED.

_________________

KEVIN H. SHARP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Nesbitt v. Wilkin Tipton, P.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 27, 2012
No. 3:11-cv-0574 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Nesbitt v. Wilkin Tipton, P.A.

Case Details

Full title:EMILY NESBITT, ALICE STANLEY, and JESSICA ADAIR, Plaintiffs, v. WILKIN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 27, 2012

Citations

No. 3:11-cv-0574 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 27, 2012)