Pearson et al v. Pea River Electric Cooperative Inc. et al (MAG+)

Filing 44

ORDERED as follows: 1) Plfs' 43 objections are OVERRULED; 2) the 41 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) the 15 motion to dismiss and compel arbitration filed by Pea River Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("Cooperative") is DENIED in part onl y as to Plfs' FDCPA claim against the Cooperative; 4) Plfs' FDCPA claim against the Cooperative is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and 5) Plfs' remaining state law claims against the Cooperative are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC § 1367(c)(3). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/5/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LORENZO PEARSON and
CLARISSA PEARSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PEA RIVER ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-347-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court are the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
# 41) and Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. # 43). Based upon an independent and de
novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made,
see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. # 43) are OVERRULED;

2.

the Recommendation (Doc. # 41) is ADOPTED;

3.

the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (Doc. # 15) filed by Pea

River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“Cooperative”) is DENIED in part only as to
Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim against the Cooperative;

4.

Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim against the Cooperative is DISMISSED with

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and
5.

Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against the Cooperative are

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 5th day of December, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2