Reynolds v. Dept/Transportation, et al, No. 2:1985cv00665 - Document 8371 (M.D. Ala. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER, it is Ordered as follows: 1) The special master's recommendation (doc. no. 8310 ), as amended (doc. no. 8319 ), is adopted as to all remaining issues, albeit for slightly different reasons; 2) The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (doc. no. 8273 is denied, albeit without prejudice, as to all remaining issues as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 2/24/09. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:85cv665-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER This case is now before the court on the special master s recommendation (Doc. No. 8310) and modification of that recommendation (Doc. No. 8319) concerning the defendants motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs individual contempt claims (Doc. No. 8273). After an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The special master s recommendation (Doc. No. 8310), as amended (Doc. No. 8319), is adopted as to all remaining issues, albeit for slightly different reasons. (2) The judgment defendants (Doc. No. 8273) motion is for partial albeit denied, summary without prejudice, as to all remaining issues. In light of the objections to the recommendation filed by the various parties and in light of the on-therecord representations of the parties at the status conferences held on November 3, 2008, and February 20, 2009, the makes the following observations. First, the issue of multiple claimants for the same position, raised in the recommendation, is simply not in a posture for efficient and wise resolution. This issue is not before the court in any concrete sense; no such claimants, with attendant factual context, have yet been identified. quite complicated legal issue presented is The made unnecessarily more complex and difficult because the court is presented with only hypotheticals. Second, the plaintiffs raise in their objections several points of clarification. These questions should be posed in the first instance to the special master. 2 The court cannot answer for the plaintiffs what the special master meant in his recommendation. DONE, this the 24th day of February, 2009. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.