TULLIS v. WALKER, 2:15-CV-91-WKW. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20170920750
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . On July 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 67) that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43) be granted. Plaintiff timely objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 68.) Upon an independent and de novo review of the record and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections are due to be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is due to be adopted. Other than correctly noting two typographical errors i
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . On July 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 67) that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43) be granted. Plaintiff timely objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 68.) Upon an independent and de novo review of the record and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections are due to be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is due to be adopted. Other than correctly noting two typographical errors in..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.
On July 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 67) that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43) be granted. Plaintiff timely objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 68.) Upon an independent and de novo review of the record and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections are due to be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is due to be adopted.
Other than correctly noting two typographical errors in the Recommendation (Doc. # 68, at 1)—neither of which is material to the Recommendation's outcome— Plaintiff's objection mostly rehashes arguments she made in previous filings. The Recommendation adequately addressed those arguments and properly rejected them. To the extent Plaintiff objects on grounds not addressed in the Recommendation, those grounds are without merit and warrant no discussion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 67) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. # 68) are OVERRULED;
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43) is GRANTED.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
Source: Leagle
