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, )

Download PDF
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

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?