Holm v. Auburn University (MAG+)
ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; (2) def's motion to dismiss is GRANTED; (3) plf's "pattern and practice" claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted; (4) plf's claims for hiring decisions 2/8/07 are DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by statute of limitations; further ORDERING that plf's 24 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and plf's claims relating to the two job applications in January 2007 are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 9/25/08. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION P A U L RANDALL HOLM, P la in tif f , v. A U B U R N UNIVERSITY, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 3:08-cv-248-MEF
O n September 5, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #23) in th is case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the f ile in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is the O R D E R , JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: 1 . The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2 . Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #16) is GRANTED. 3 . Plaintiff's "pattern and practice" claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for f a ilu re to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 4 . Plaintiff's claims for hiring decisions February 8, 2007 are DISMISSED with p r e ju d ic e as barred by statute of limitations. I t is further ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #24) filed on
Page 1 of 2
S e p te m b e r 1 6 , 2008 is GRANTED and plaintiff's claims relating to the two job applications in January 2007 are DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE this the 25th day of September, 2008.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF 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?