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, )

Download PDF
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

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?