Head v. Baisden et al

Filing 38

ORDER that Defendant Baisden's objections to the Report and Recommendation are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART as more fully set out; The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN PART as more fully set out; the Cou rt GRANTS the 25 Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Stephen D. Anderson and the City of Tuscaloosa; The claims against Defendants Anderson and City of Tuscaloosa are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim; Defendant Baisden's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as more fully set out. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/09/17. (SPT)

FILED
2017 Nov-09 PM 04:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION

ANTONIO HEAD,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
CARY BAISDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 7:14-cv-01788-HNJ

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s June 29, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 32) and Defendant Cary Baisden’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 33). For the reasons explained in the Memorandum Opinion entered
with this Order, Defendant Baisden’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are
SUSTAINED IN PART with regard to Plaintiff’s outrage claim and OVERRULED IN PART
with regard to all other claims.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is

ADOPTED IN PART and in all respects, except for the recommendation regarding the outrage
claim. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Stephen D.
Anderson and the City of Tuscaloosa. (Doc. # 25). The claims against Defendants Anderson
and City of Tuscaloosa are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a
claim. Defendant Baisden’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 25) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff’s outrage claim against Baisden is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. In all other respects, Baisden’s Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED.

This dismissal shall not affect any other right, claim, or cause of action which Plaintiff
has, or may have, against the remaining Defendant.
DONE and ORDERED this November 9, 2017.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2