Shortz v. City of Tuskegee et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss to the extent that: all of plaintiff's claims against the Tuskegee Police Department are DISMISSED with prejudice; Count Two of the complaint, alleging race discrimi nation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, is DISMISSED without prejudice; and plaintiff's promissory fraud claim (Count Three) is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the City of Tuskegee and the Tuskegee Police Department. That this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 1/7/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION J A M E S H. SHORTZ, P l a in tif f , v. C IT Y OF TUSKEGEE, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER T h e re being no objections filed to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 32), and upon an independent review of the file, it is ORDERED that the Report and R e c o m m e n d a t io n is adopted and that defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the e x ten t that: (1) all of plaintiff's claims against the Tuskegee Police Department are D IS M IS S E D with prejudice; (2) Count Two of the complaint, alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U .S .C . 1981, is DISMISSED without prejudice; and (3) p lain tiff's promissory fraud claim (Count Three) is DISMISSED with prejudice a s to the City of Tuskegee and the Tuskegee Police Department. C A S E NO. 3:08-CV-456-WKW T h is action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on p l a in t if f 's remaining claims.1 D o n e this 7th day of January, 2009. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Defendants do not expressly move for dismissal of the FLSA claim (Count One), and they argue generally for dismissal of the breach of employment contract claim (Count Four). See Doc. # 10, pp. 5-8. To the extent that the City's and police department's respondeat superior argument is intended to extend to these two claims, the motion is denied. 2 1

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?