Alexander v. Boral Brick, Inc. et al (MAG+)

Filing 58

ORDERED that: (1) The 57 Amended Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (2) The 35 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; (3) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; (4) The 44 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply Brief is DENIED as moot; (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as moot; and (6) Any other outstanding motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III on 11/19/2008. (cb, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION QUINCY L. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. BORAL BRICK, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:07-cv-647-WHA-TFM [wo] ORDER On October 29, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Recommendation (Doc. 57) to which no timely objections were made. Upon an independent review of the record and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE that: (1) (2) (3) (4) The Amended Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's "Reply Brief." (Doc. 44) is DENIED as moot. (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 48) is DENIED as moot because the evidentiary materials have now been considered. (6) Any other outstanding motions are DENIED as moot. Page 1 of 2 DONE this19th day of November, 2008. /s/ W. Harold Albritton SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 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?