From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Coffee Cnty. Comm'n

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sep 9, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13cv414-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13cv414-MHT (WO)

09-09-2015

ARTHUR C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. COFFEE COUNTY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.


JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered today, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows:

(1) The United States Magistrate Judge's recommendation (doc. no. 49) is adopted.

(2) Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. no. 43) is granted to the extent that the following claims are dismissed without prejudice: purported claims arising under unspecified "federal laws;" the First Amendment claim contained in Count Two; and the disparate-impact claim contained in Count One.

(3) Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. no. 43) is denied in all other respects.

(4) Defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's claims relating to unspecified "federal laws" (doc. no. 43) is denied as moot.

It is further ORDERED that no costs are taxed.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This case is referred back to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

DONE, this the 9th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Johnson v. Coffee Cnty. Comm'n

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sep 9, 2015
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13cv414-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Johnson v. Coffee Cnty. Comm'n

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. COFFEE COUNTY COMMISSION, et al.…

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 9, 2015

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13cv414-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2015)

Citing Cases

Lumzy v. Select Speciality Hosp.

Here, Plaintiff fails to provide any detail regarding where and how she engaged in statutorily protected…