Brooks v. McDonald et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 58

ORDER directing that (1) plf's 57 objections are OVERRULED; (2) the 56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) def's 40 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; (4) plf's 44 , 48 , and 51 Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED; (5) this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/13/16. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DANNY L. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT MCDONALD, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:15-CV-383-WKW [WO] ORDER On May 25, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 56) to which Plaintiff timely filed objections (Doc. # 57). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court concludes that the objections are without merit and that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is due to be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. # 57) are OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 56) is ADOPTED; (3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED; (4) Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. # 44, 48, 51) are DENIED; (5) This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 13th day of June, 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?