Pearson, et al. v. Filmore, et al. (MAG+)

Filing 8

ORDER directing as follows: (1) plfs' 6 objection is OVERRULED; (2) the 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED; (3) plf's complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); (4) plf's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and (5) plf's 4 Motion to Amend complaint is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/5/15. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LORENZO PEARSON and
CLARISSA PEARSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BILL FILMORE and THE
COMMERCIAL BANK OF
OZARK,
Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-79-WKW

ORDER
On August 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc.
# 5) to which Plaintiffs object (Doc. # 6). 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’ objection (Doc. # 6) is OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 5) is ADOPTED;

(3)

Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii);
(4)

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is

GRANTED; and
(5)

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Doc. # 4) their complaint is DENIED.

DONE this 5th day of October, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2