Laud-Hammond v. Johnson et al

Filing 32

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (2) plf's action against defs Brian Johnson and Cesar Fermin is DISMISSED; (3) the 30 Joint motion to Proceed with Voluntary Dismissa l is DENIED as moot; (4) def Tuskegee University's 31 Objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate is OVERRULED as moot; and (5) this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/27/17. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
DR. ARCHIBALD LAUDHAMMOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN JOHNSON, CESAR
FERMIN, and TUSKEGEE
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-345-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which
recommends dismissing Defendants Brian Johnson and Cesar Fermin because they
were not timely served. (Doc. # 29.) The Magistrate Judge explained that the
parties told the court they were “working towards a global settlement in the case,”
but “[b]ecause such a settlement would encompass all of the intended parties, the
court would require jurisdiction over the individual Defendants in order to approve
such a settlement.” (Doc. # 29, at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff could either serve Defendants
Johnson and Fermin, or dismiss them, but a global settlement of the case could not
move forward while two of the intended defendants remained in limbo.

Defendant Tuskegee University has objected to the Recommendation, but
only “to the extent it finds that the Court must approve any resolution of this
matter.”

(Doc. # 31, at 3.)

Specifically, “Tuskegee does not object to this

dismissal” of Defendants Johnson and Fermin. (Doc. # 31, at 1.) Defendant’s
objection is in accord with the parties’ Joint Status Report and Motion to Proceed
with Voluntary Dismissal, which likewise interprets the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation as “suggest[ing] a resolution of this case may require court
approval.” (Doc. # 30, at 1.)
Instead of reading the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation as requiring
court approval of any settlement agreement the parties come up with—as might be
the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for instance—the simpler explanation
is that the Magistrate Judge was pointing out that the parties could not have a truly
“global settlement” (their term), affecting the rights of all intended parties, unless
all the parties were actually served and part of the agreement. Read this way, there
is no discord between the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the parties’ Joint
Status Report, and Defendant Tuskegee University’s Objection to the
Recommendation of the Magistrate.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 29) is

ADOPTED;
2

2.

Plaintiff’s action against Defendants Brian Johnson and Cesar Fermin

is DISMISSED;
3.

The Joint Motion to Proceed with Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 30) by

Plaintiff Laud-Hammond and Defendant Tuskegee University is DENIED as moot;
4.

Defendant Tuskegee University’s Objection to the Recommendation

of the Magistrate (Doc. # 31) is OVERRULED as moot; and
5.

This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as
may be appropriate.
DONE this 27th day of November, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3