Scott v. Garlock, 2:18-CV-981-WKW. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190905651
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , District Judge . On July 31, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. # 13, 15, and 34) be granted and that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. # 39.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, timely objected to the Recommendation (Doc. # 40) to which Defendants filed a response (Doc. # 41). The objections are due to be overruled. Plaintif
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , District Judge . On July 31, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. # 13, 15, and 34) be granted and that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. # 39.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, timely objected to the Recommendation (Doc. # 40) to which Defendants filed a response (Doc. # 41). The objections are due to be overruled. Plaintiff..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, District Judge.
On July 31, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. # 13, 15, and 34) be granted and that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. # 39.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, timely objected to the Recommendation (Doc. # 40) to which Defendants filed a response (Doc. # 41). The objections are due to be overruled.
Plaintiff's objections are general, irrelevant to the material issues, and largely non-sensical. Plaintiff does not object to any specific finding of fact or conclusion of law in the thorough Recommendation and, thus, does not invoke a right to a de novo review of the Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the Recommendation de novo and concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 39) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. # 40) are OVERRULED;
3. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. # 13, 15, and 34) are GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiff's state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (Docs. # 38, 43, 44) are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
