Hughes v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING in part and MODIFYING in part the 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; ORDERING as follows: (1) defs' 32 & 42 Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as to plf's claim for defamation; (2) def's 32 & [ 42] Motions to dismiss are GRANTED as to plf's claim for invasion of privacy based upon publicity, but DENIED as to plf's claim for invasion of privacy based upon intrusion upon seclusion; (3) def's 32 & 42 Motions to dismiss are G RANTED as to plf's claims for tortious conduct and conspiracy; (4) plf's 40 motion for oral argument is DENIED as moot; and (5) This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/9/18. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
TIFFANY HUGHES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, EAST
LP., and MICHAEL R. HARRIS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-225-WKW

ORDER
On June 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which
no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 47.) Upon an independent review of
the record and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that
the Recommendation is ADOPTED in part and MODIFIED in part. 1 Specifically,
it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. # 32 & 42) are DENIED as to

Plaintiff’s claim for Defamation;
(2)

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. # 32 & 42) are GRANTED as

to Plaintiff’s claim for Invasion of Privacy based upon publicity, but DENIED as
to Plaintiff’s claim for Invasion of Privacy based upon intrusion upon seclusion;

1

The Magistrate Judge recommends denying all other pending motions as moot (Doc.
# 47, at 13), but the Recommendation was entered before Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc.
# 48) was filed. Accordingly, as that motion is properly pending before the Magistrate Judge,
that section of the Recommendation will be modified.

(3)

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. # 32 & 42) are GRANTED as

to Plaintiff’s claims for Tortious Conduct and Conspiracy;
(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument (Doc. # 40) is DENIED as

moot; and
(5)

This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as
may be appropriate.
DONE this 9th day of July, 2018.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2