Jones v. O'Reilly Automotive Inc, No. 5:2010cv02958 - Document 46 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER-The court is of the opinion that the report is due to be, and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment 29 is GRANTED. Dft's Motion to Strike 37 is MOOT. It is hereby ORDERD, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that final judgment be entered in favor of O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. and against Pltf Kelvin Jones. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs are taxed agains Pltf. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/20/2012. (AVC)

Download PDF
Jones v. O'Reilly Automotive Inc Doc. 46 FILED 2012 Nov-20 AM 08:59 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION KELVIN JONES, Plaintiff, v. O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Defendant. } } } } } } } } } Case No. 5:10-cv-02958-RDP ORDER On October 22, 2012, the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation in the abovereferenced case (Doc. # 43), recommending that this court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 29). Although objections to the report and recommendation were due to be filed by November 6, 2012, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), no objections were filed. Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file,1 including the report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the report is due to be, and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 29) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. # 37) is MOOT. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that final judgment be entered in favor of O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. and against Plaintiff Kelvin Jones. This action is DISMISSED 1 The court notes that it was not required to conduct an independent review of the report and recommendation in this case because no party has filed objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the magistrate’s report and agrees with his conclusions. Dockets.Justia.com WITH PREJUDICE. Costs are taxed against Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2012. ___________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR 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.