Rogers v. City of Montgomery et al
ORDERED as follows: (1) The 46 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (2) Defendants' 40 Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr. Rogers' federal claims is GRANTED; (3) The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Rogers 039; state law claim and said claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); (4)Defendants' 40 Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr. Roger's state law claim is DENIED, as moot; and (5) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all federal claims. A final judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 8/3/2010. (cb, )
Rogers v. City of Montgomery et al (MAG+)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION J A U R E L ROGERS, P la in tif f , v. C IT Y OF MONTGOMERY, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 2:09-CV-288-WKW
ORDER P la in tif f Jaurel Rogers brings this action against Defendants City of Montgomery and J e f f e ry L. Davis, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and state-law a s s a u lt and battery. (Compl. (Doc. # 1).) This cause is before the court on Defendants' M o tio n for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 40) and the Magistrate Judge's Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , recommending dismissal of the case (Doc. # 46). On July 27, 2010, Mr. R o g e rs filed what appears to be an objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 48.) Defendants subsequently filed a motion to strike the objection. (Doc. # 49.) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation clearly states that objections to th e Recommendation were due by July 26, 2010, and warns that "[f]rivolous, conclusive or g e n e ra l objections will not be considered by the District Court." (Doc. # 46, at 18.) Mr. R o g e rs' objection, filed one day after the deadline, merely challenges Defendants' version o f the facts and complains that his version of the facts has not been considered by this court. The court notes, however, that Mr. Rogers has not given the court an opportunity to do so,
as he failed to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, failed to appear at the p re -tria l conference, and failed to support his most recent filing with any evidence or legal a u t h o r i t y. Furthermore, Mr. Rogers fails to identify the specific findings in the
R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which he objects. Therefore, the court finds that in addition to being la te the objections are frivolous and conclusory, and will not be considered. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' motion to strike the objections (Doc. # 49) is GRANTED. Upon a thorough and independent review of the record and the Magistrate Judge's R e c o m m e n d a tio n , it is further ORDERED as follows: (1 ) (2) T h e Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 46) is ADOPTED; D e f e n d an ts' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 40) on Mr. Rogers' federal
c la im s is GRANTED; (3 ) the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Rogers' state law claim and
s a id claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); (4) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 40) on Mr. Rogers' state
la w claim is DENIED, as moot; and (5) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all federal claims.
A final judgment will be entered. DONE this 3rd day of August, 2010.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins 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?