Wilson v. State of Alabama et al (CRUM SPIN)

Filing 109

ORDER denying 74 and 88 Motions to Strike. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 3/26/2010. (br, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION CHARLES WILSON, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER It is ORDERED that the motions to strike (doc. nos. 74 and 88) are denied. In resolving the pending summary-judgment motion, the court has implicitly considered the motions to strike as notices of objections to the submissions described and has considered any related briefs as arguments on the objections. See Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv560-MHT (WO)

F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002); Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n. 1 (S.D. Ga. 1993). The court is capable of sifting evidence, as

required by the summary-judgment standard, without resort

to an exclusionary process, and the court will not allow the summary-judgment stage to degenerate into a battle of motions to strike. DONE, this the 26th of March, 2010. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE