Jones v. O'Reilly Automotive Inc

Filing 46

ORDER-The court is of the opinion that the report is due to be, and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment 29 is GRANTED. Dft's Motion to Strike 37 is MOOT. It is hereby ORDERD, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that final judgment be entered in favor of O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. and against Pltf Kelvin Jones. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs are taxed agains Pltf. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/20/2012. (AVC)

FILED
2012 Nov-20 AM 08:59
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
KELVIN JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC.,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No. 5:10-cv-02958-RDP

ORDER
On October 22, 2012, the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation in the abovereferenced case (Doc. # 43), recommending that this court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 29). Although objections to the report and recommendation were due to be filed
by November 6, 2012, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), no objections were filed.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file,1
including the report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the report is due to be, and
hereby is, ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 29) is GRANTED. Defendant’s
Motion to Strike (Doc. # 37) is MOOT.
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that final judgment be entered in
favor of O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. and against Plaintiff Kelvin Jones. This action is DISMISSED

1

The court notes that it was not required to conduct an independent review of the report and
recommendation in this case because no party has filed objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”). Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the magistrate’s report
and agrees with his conclusions.

WITH PREJUDICE.
Costs are taxed against Plaintiff.
DONE and ORDERED this

20th

day of November, 2012.

___________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE