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, )

Download PDF
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?