Barber v. Cellco Partnership(MAG+)

Filing 17

ORDERED that (1) The 15 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (2) Dft's 10 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part as to the arguments under FRCP 12(b)(1) and FRCP 12(b)(3); (3) Pursuant to 28 USC § 1404(a), this case is TRANSFERRED to the Northern Di strict of Alabama, Northeastern Division; and (4) The remaining part of Dft's 10 Motion to Dismiss shall remain pending for adjudication in the Northern District of Alabama; Additionally, Plf's 16 Motion to Amend EEOC Complaint shall remain pending for adjudication by the Northern District of Alabama. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/23/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CHARLIE J. BARBER, II, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a, VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-954-WKW ORDER On April 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 15.) Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that (1) The Recommendation (Doc. # 15) is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10) is DENIED in part as to the arguments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3); (3) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division; and (4) The remaining part of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10) shall remain pending for adjudication in the Northern District of Alabama. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend EEOC Complaint (Doc. # 16) shall remain pending for adjudication by the Northern District of Alabama. DONE this 23rd day of May, 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?