McCall v. Montgomery Housing Authority et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 114

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The Plf's motion to amend her objections (doc. 113 ) is GRANTED; 2) The Plf's motion for a hearing (doc. 112 ) is DENIED; 3) The Plf's objections (docs. 111 & 113 ) are OVERRULED; 4) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 108 ) is ADOPTED; 5. The Defs' motion for summary judgment (doc. 90 ) is GRANTED; and 6) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 11/5/2019. (cnw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MINNIE MCCALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:14-cv-1113-ECM
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Now pending before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc.
108) which recommends that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 90) be
granted and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. On September 9, 2019, the Plaintiff
filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 111). The next day, the Plaintiff filed a
motion for hearing (doc. 112). Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend her objections (doc. 113), which the Court will grant. The Court has carefully
reviewed the record in this case, including the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the Plaintiff’s objections as amended. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” FED.R.CIV.P.
72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual

issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507,
513 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Gopie, 347 F. App’x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir.
2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must
be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208
F. App’x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is
reviewed for clear error. Id.
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s objections as amended, wherein she simply
reiterates her complaints against the Montgomery Housing Authority. The Plaintiff’s
objections largely mirror her response to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
offering only her conclusory assertions that she has been discriminated against and
retaliated against by the Defendants. She objects to the Report and Recommendation
without any specificity and without stating the bases for her objections. Despite the lack
of specificity in the Plaintiff’s objections meriting review only for clear error, the Court
undertook a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections and finds that they are due to be
overruled even under that more stringent standard of review.
The Plaintiff does not point to any error committed by the Magistrate Judge, but
instead re-offers a recitation of the claims made in her amended complaint. The Court
finds that the well-reasoned Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge effectively
addresses all of the Plaintiff’s claims.
Accordingly, for the reasons as stated and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.
.

The Plaintiff’s motion to amend her objections (doc. 113) is GRANTED;

2.

The Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing (doc. 112) is DENIED;

3.

The Plaintiff’s objections (docs. 111 & 113) are OVERRULED;

4.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 108) is ADOPTED;

5.

The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 90) is GRANTED; and

6.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

A final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 5th day of November, 2019.

/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

.