Sealey v. Branch Banking and Trust Company

Filing 31

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
NORTHERN DIVISION
MELVIN LEWIS SEALEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND
TRUST CO.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-837-WKW

ORDER
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:
(1)

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 26, 27) are OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 25) is ADOPTED;

(3)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 5) is GRANTED;

(4)

Defendant’s alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc.

# 5) and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 7) are DENIED as moot;
and
(5)

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

2