McCloud v. Central Alabama Health Care VA et al (MAG+), No. 3:2023cv00402 - Document 48 (M.D. Ala. 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The 41 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2. The Dfts' 39 motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests a more definite statement and DENIED to the extent it request s dismissal of the Plf's claims; 3. The Plf is DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the FRCP and the requirements set forth in the 41 Recommendation; 4. This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 2/23/2024. (BES)

Download PDF
McCloud v. Central Alabama Health Care VA et al (MAG+) Doc. 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION CONTESSA CLARK MCCLOUD, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL ALABAMA HEALTH CARE VA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL CASE NO. 3:23-cv-402-ECM ) [WO] ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On December 27, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that the Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement, or in the alternative, motion to dismiss (doc. 39) be granted to the extent that it seeks a more definite statement but denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 41). The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Plaintiff be directed to “file an Amended Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and other requirements set out in the Recommendation. (Id. at 4–5). The Plaintiff did not file timely objections to the Recommendation but did file a document purporting to be an Amended Complaint, (doc. 42), as well as evidentiary submissions, (docs. 43, 44). On January 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order affording the Plaintiff an additional period through February 2, 2024, to file objections to the pending Recommendation. (Doc. 45). The Magistrate Judge’s Order also explained that the Plaintiff’s submissions did not comply with the Recommendation’s instructions on filing an Amended Complaint and once again Dockets.Justia.com provided the Plaintiff instructions for filing an Amended Complaint, if she desires to file one, which complies with the requirements set forth in the Recommendation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 2–3). To date, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, (doc. 41). Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 41) is ADOPTED; 2. The Defendants’ motion (doc. 39) is GRANTED to the extent it requests a more definite statement and DENIED to the extent it requests dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims; 3. The Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements set forth in the Recommendation (doc. 41 at 4–5) on or before March 8, 2024; 4. This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. DONE this 23rd day of February, 2024. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.