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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?