Crum, et al v. State of Alabama, et al

Filing 977

JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered today, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the 913 MOTION for Summary Judgment is granted as to plf Wanda Jackson Speights; is denied as to plf Kathe rine Mathews; and is denied as moot as to former plf Deborah Lumpkin; (2) the renewed 947 MOTION for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, on-the-record status conference on the claims of plf Speights is denied as moot; (3) the 948 rene wed MOTION for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion to dismiss plf Mathews for want of prosecution is granted as to the motion to dismiss, and is denied as moot as to the motion for summary judgment; (4) all claims of plf Mathews are dismi ssed with prejudice for want of prosecution, with no costs taxed, and she is terminated as a party to this action; (5) judgment is entered against plf Speights and for defs, with plf Speights taking nothing by her complaint, in the alternative, plf S peight's claims are dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution; plf Speights is terminated as a party to this action; (6) costs are taxed against plfs Speights, for which execution may issue; directing the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; this case is not closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/18/17. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
IN RE: EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION
AGAINST THE STATE OF
ALABAMA, et al.,
EUGENE CRUM, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

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

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:94cv356-MHT
(WO)

JUDGMENT
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered
today, it is the

ORDER,

JUDGMENT,

and

DECREE

of

the

court as follows:
(1) The motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 913)
is granted as to plaintiff Wanda Jackson Speights; is
denied as to plaintiff Katherine Mathews; and is denied
as moot as to former plaintiff Deborah Lumpkin.
(2) The renewed motion for summary judgment, or in
the alternative, for an on-the-record status conference

(doc. no. 947) on the claims of plaintiff Speights is
denied as moot.
(3) The renewed motion for summary judgment, or in
the alternative, to dismiss plaintiff Mathews for want
of prosecution (doc. no. 948) is granted as to the
motion to dismiss, and is denied as moot as to the
motion for summary judgment.
(4) All claims of plaintiff Mathews are dismissed
with prejudice for want of prosecution, with no costs
taxed, and she is terminated as a party to this action.
(5) Judgment is entered against plaintiff Speights
and

for

defendants,

with

plaintiff

Speights

taking

nothing by her complaint; in the alternative, plaintiff
Speights’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for want
of prosecution.

Plaintiff Speights is terminated as a

party to this action.
(6) Costs are taxed against plaintiffs Speights,
for which execution may issue.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this
document

on

the

civil

docket
2

as

a

final

judgment

pursuant

to

Rule

58

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure.
This case is not closed.
DONE, this the 18th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE