Thomas et al v. Buckner et al

Filing 102

ORDER directing that; (1) plfs' 100 Objections are OVERRULED; (2) the 99 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) plfs' 95 MOTION for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/21/16. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION KAYLA THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NANCY BUCKNER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-245-WKW ORDER On May 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 99) to which Plaintiffs timely filed objections (Doc. # 100). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiffs do not argue that any ruling entered by this Court, including the November 11, 2013 Order granting Defendants’ motion to stay (Doc. # 76), constitutes a judicial imprimatur on the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims by the ALJ. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the court concludes that the objections are without merit and that the Recommendation is due to be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. # 100) are OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 99) is ADOPTED; (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 95) is DENIED. DONE this 21st day of July, 2016. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?