Russell v. Housel

Jul 22, 2026
3:25-cv-00825

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the plaintiff‘s Objections (Doc. No. 87) to the Magistrate Judge‘s Report and Recommendation (“R&R“) are OVERRULED, and the R&R (Doc. No. 80) is ACCEPTED, with minor modifications. Accordingly, the court disposes of all motions addressed in the R&R as follows:

  • defendant Jonathan Cole‘s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 64) is DENIED;
  • the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 38) filed by defendants Barbara Latimer and E.D. Latimer is GRANTED, and the claims against the Latimer defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted;
  • the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 45) filed by defendants Jeff Bills and Jason Steinle is GRANTED, and the claims against Bills and Steinle are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, under Rule 12(b)(1) based on the plaintiff‘s lack of standing to assert claims against them on behalf of a third party; to the extent the claims against Metropolitan Nashville Davidson County (“Metro“) are premised upon its employment of Bills and Steinle, those claims are likewise DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing;
  • the Motion to Dismiss filed by Terrance McBride and Metro (Doc. No. 46) is GRANTED; the claims against McBride and the claims against Metro premised upon its employment of McBride are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted;
  • Jonathan Cole‘s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 47) is GRANTED, and the claims against him are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted;
  • the Motion to Dismiss filed by the State of Tennessee and Debbie Housel (Doc. No. 52) is GRANTED, and all claims against the State of Tennessee, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and Housel in her official capacity are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(1); the claims against Housel in her individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds of absolute prosecutorial immunity;
  • the plaintiff‘s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED; and
  • all other motions addressed in the R&R, including the plaintiff‘s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 54), Motion to Consolidate Related Cases (Doc. No. 57), and Motion for Substitution of Defendants (Doc. No. 75), are DENIED AS MOOT.

In addition, all other motions filed with or in conjunction with the plaintiff‘s Objections to the R&R, including the plaintiff‘s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 94), Motion for Leave to Present New Evidence Material to Plaintiff‘s Objections (Doc. No. 89), Motion to Supplement Plaintiff‘s Motion for Leave to Present New Evidence (Doc. No. 91), and Motion for Second Supplement to Plaintiff‘s Motion for Leave to Present New Evidence (Doc. No. 97), are DENIED.

All claims against all defendants having been dismissed, this is the final Order in this case, for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

It is so ORDERED.

ALETA A. TRAUGER

United States District Judge