Sealey v. Branch Banking and Trust Company
ORDERED that: (1) Plf's 26 & 27 objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 25 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (3) Dft's 5 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; (4) Dft's 5 alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement and 7 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED as moot; and (5) This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/26/2016. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MELVIN LEWIS SEALEY,
BRANCH BANKING AND
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-837-WKW
On August 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc.
# 25) to which Plaintiff timely filed objections (Docs. # 26.) On September 19,
2016, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. #
30.) 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).
In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claims
are barred by res judicata and Rule 41. (Doc. # 25, at 14.) To the extent that
Plaintiff’s objections address Rule 41 and res judicata, they are without merit.
Plaintiff also filed a document he titled “Motion to Vacate Magistrate Orders
and Recommendation” with an accompanying brief in support. (Docs. # 27, 28.)
The court construes these documents as supplemental objections to the
Recommendation. In these documents, Plaintiff asserts that he never consented to
proceed before the Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge
may “designate a magistrate judge” to make determinations or recommendations
about pretrial matters as appropriate. The section does not require consent of the
parties for referral of pretrial matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Therefore, these
objections are without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 26, 27) are OVERRULED;
The Recommendation (Doc. # 25) is ADOPTED;
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 5) is GRANTED;
Defendant’s alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc.
# 5) and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 7) are DENIED as moot;
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 26th day of September, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?