Bennett v. Alabama, State of et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/29/2015. (KEK)
2015 Dec-29 PM 02:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JESSE LEE BENNETT,
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-1771-MHH-TMP
The magistrate judge filed a report on December 1, 2015 in which he
recommended that the special report of defendants Cunningham and Pope be
treated as a motion for summary judgment and that that motion and the motion for
summary judgement filed by defendants Arthur and Nevett be granted. (Doc. 24).
The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written
objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen days. The Court has
received no objections from Mr. Bennett or the defendants.
When a party does not object to a report and recommendation, the Court
reviews the report for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784
(11th Cir. 2006). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. §
Having reviewed the materials in the court file, including the complaint and
the report and recommendation, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and
accepts his recommendation. The Court expressly finds that there are no genuine
issues of material fact, and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on the plaintiff’s federal claims.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment relating to Mr. Bennett’s federal claims. The Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Bennett’s state law claim for slander.
U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3) & (d). The Court will dismiss that clam without prejudice.
The Court will enter a separate final judgment.
DONE and ORDERED this December 29, 2015.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
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?