Lampton v. Sachem Mountain Enterprises, LLC

Filing 43

ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's 37 and 39 objections are OVERRULED. 2. The 35 Recommendation as amended by the Magistrate Judge's 41 Order is ADOPTED. 3. The 30 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sachem Mountain, LLC, is GRANTED. 4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/19/2015. (kh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES E. LAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SACHEM MOUNTAIN
ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-057-WKW
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in
this case. (Doc. # 35.) On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff James E. Lampton filed
three motions in response to the Recommendation: (1) a Motion to Object to
Summary Judgment (Doc. # 37); (2) a Motion to Object to Court Costs and
Proceedings (Doc. # 38); and (3) a Motion to Object to Defendant’s Claim Asking
for Dismissal (Doc. # 39). The Magistrate Judge construed Plaintiff’s motions
objecting to summary judgment and Defendant’s claim for dismissal (Docs. # 37 &
39) as motions for leave to file objections, which he granted. (Doc. # 42.) The
Magistrate Judge also ordered Defendant to show cause why part three of its
Recommendation taxing court costs against Plaintiff should not be withdrawn.
(Doc. # 40.) Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion objecting to court

costs or the show cause order, and the Magistrate Judge withdrew part three of its
Recommendation on January 20, 2015. (Doc. # 41.)
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s remaining objections (Docs. # 37 & 39),
this court conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
In his objections, Plaintiff provides three arguments in support of his claims
against Defendant: (1) he has “two main witnesses who are currently employed at
[D]efendant’s company” who “will testify under oath . . . on [his] behalf”; (2)
interrogatories answered by Defendant show a genuine dispute of material fact;
and (3) Plaintiff’s “independent witnesses will testify [about] how the company . . .
acted out in retaliation” by distributing flyers of Plaintiff’s criminal record in
Plaintiff’s neighborhood. (Docs. # 37 & 39.)

Plaintiff’s objections are due to be

overruled. While Plaintiff asserts that he has supportive witnesses, Plaintiff has
failed to provide affidavits or evidence regarding the alleged witness testimony and
merely makes conclusory statements as to the presence of genuine disputes of
material fact.

Further, Plaintiff’s objections fail to cure the deficiencies that the

Magistrate Judge cited and elaborated upon in his Recommendation.

2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. # 37 & 39) are OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 35) as amended by the Magistrate
Judge’s Order (Doc. # 41) is ADOPTED.

3.

The Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 30) filed by Sachem
Mountain, LLC, is GRANTED.

4.

Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

A separate judgment will be entered.
DONE this 19th day of February, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3