From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Tennessee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Aug 6, 2012
NO. 3:11-1127 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 3:11-1127

08-06-2012

CHARLES H. ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants.


Judge Sharp/Bryant


ORDER

The undersigned Magistrate Judge has previously denied without prejudice a number of motions filed by plaintiff Roberts that did not include the signature of plaintiff Murdock (Docket Entry No. 110). Plaintiff Roberts has filed two additional motions (Docket Entry Nos. 111 and 115) that suffer from the same defect. For reasons more fully explained in the Court's earlier memorandum and order, plaintiff Roberts may represent himself pro se in this action, but he is not permitted to represent plaintiff Murdock. Therefore, motions identified as Docket Entry Nos. 111 and 115 are DENIED without prejudice to their being refiled bearing the signatures of both plaintiff Roberts and plaintiff Murdock.

It is so ORDERED.

________________

JOHN S. BRYANT

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Roberts v. Tennessee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Aug 6, 2012
NO. 3:11-1127 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Roberts v. Tennessee

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES H. ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.…

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2012

Citations

NO. 3:11-1127 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2012)