Reynolds v. Dept/Transportation, et al

Filing 8743

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) the special master's 8688 Report and Recommendation is rejected without prejudice; (2) the plaintiff's and the defendants' 8694 and 8696 Objections are overruled without prejudice; (3) the defendants' 8655 motion for summary judgment with regard to claimant Gary B. Smith's individual-contempt claims is referred back to the special master for further proceedings in light of claimant Smith's retirement. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:85cv665-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This long-standing litigation is now before the court
on

the

special

master’s

recommendation

that

the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claimant Gary
B. Smith’s individual-contempt claims should be denied in
part

and

granted

in

part.

The

plaintiffs

and

the

defendants have filed objections to the recommendation.
In their objections, the defendants contend that all nonbarred relief (declaratory and injunctive) is now moot
because Smith has retired.

In their objections, the

plaintiffs contend that the “adjustment for retirement”
is not barred because the money for such will go to a

third-party (the State Retirement Systems) and thus would
not have been subject to Smith’s bankruptcy.

It appears

that

Smith

the

special

master

was

unaware

that

had

retired and thus the special master could not have taken
into consideration what the implications are from Smith’s
retirement, in particular, the implications raised in the
defendants’ objections and the plaintiffs’ objections.
After an independent and de novo review of the record,
the

court

concludes

recommendation

should

that
be

the

special

rejected,

albeit

master’s
without

prejudice, at this time and the matter remanded to the
special master for reconsideration in light of Smith’s
retirement.
***
It is therefore the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court as follows:
(1) The special master’s recommendation (Doc. No.
8688) is rejected without prejudice.

2

(2) The plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ objections
(Doc. Nos. 8694 & 8696) are overruled without
prejudice.
(3) The

defendants’

motion

for

summary

judgment

(Doc. No. 8655) with regard to claimant Gary B.
Smith’s individual-contempt claims is referred
back

to

proceedings

the
in

special
light

master
of

for

further

claimant

Smith’s

retirement.
DONE, this the 28th day of November, 2011.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE