City of Phenix City, Alabama, Phenix City Red Light Safety Program v. Carroll (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 37

ORDERED as follows: (1) Defendant's 29 objection is OVERRULED; (2) The 28 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (3) Plaintiffs' Motions to Remand (Docs. # 9 , 13 ) are GRANTED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (4) This case is REMANDED to the Municipal Court of Phenix City, Alabama; and (5) All remaining outstanding motions (Docs. # 4 , 11 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 ) are DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's 31 Motion for Disqualification and 35 Motion for Summary Judgment are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take the steps necessary to effectuate the remand. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/5/2016. (kh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
CITY OF PHENIX CITY,
ALABAMA, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JERRY PAUL CARROLL,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-748-WKW

ORDER
On March 14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 28)
to which Defendant timely filed an objection (Doc. # 29). Plaintiff Redflex Traffic
Systems filed a response to Defendant’s objection. (Doc. # 30.) The court has
conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and finds that
Defendant’s objection is without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

Defendant’s objection (Doc. # 29) is OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 28) is ADOPTED;

(3)

Plaintiffs’ Motions to Remand (Docs. # 9, 13) are GRANTED for lack

of subject-matter jurisdiction;1
(4)

This case is REMANDED to the Municipal Court of Phenix City,

Alabama; and
(5)

All remaining outstanding motions (Docs. # 4, 11, 21, 22, 23, 25) are

DENIED as moot.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Disqualification (Doc.
# 31) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 35) are DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to take the steps necessary to effectuate
the remand.
DONE this 5th day of April, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The court also notes that although Plaintiff alleged jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1331 and
1332, these sections grant jurisdiction for civil matters. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32. The complaint
in this case stems from a violation of a Phenix City ordinance, so that the case is not a civil matter
that falls within the jurisdictional grant of either § 1331 or § 1332.
2