Richardson v. Alagasco, Inc.

Filing 7

PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the Magistrate's Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Dft's Motion to Dismiss 3 is GRANTED as to (1) pla's claim of retaliation pursuant to Title VII, (2) pla's claim of reta liation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, (3) pla's claims of race discrimination pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and (4) pla's claims of hostile work environment or racially hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Such claims hereby are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that dft's Motion to Dismiss hereby is DENIED as to pla's claim of retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on denial of overtime. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 7/20/14. (CTS, )

FILED
2014 Jul-21 AM 09:02
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
ANDREW G. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff
vs.
ALAGASCO, INC.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 7:13-cv-01950-SLB
)
)
)
)

PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER
On December 10, 2013, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections have
been filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate
judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
and it is, therefore,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is due to be and hereby is GRANTED as to (1) plaintiff’s claim of retaliation
pursuant to Title VII, (2) plaintiff’s claim of retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Page 1 of 2

based on defendant changing his routes, causing him to read meters with a flashlight
and causing cameras to watch him, (3) plaintiff’s claims of race discrimination
pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and (4) plaintiff’s claims of hostile work
environment or racially hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981, and such claims hereby are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
hereby is DENIED as to plaintiff’s claim of retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981
based on denial of overtime.
DONE this 20th day of July, 2014.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2