From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

T.P.R. v. Montgomery Public Schools

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Jun 17, 2010
CASE NO. 2:08cv813-WKW (M.D. Ala. Jun. 17, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:08cv813-WKW.

June 17, 2010


ORDER


On May 26, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case. (Doc. # 43.) On June 9, 2010, Plaintiff T.P.R., "by and through his parent Donna Patterson-Randolph," filed objections on June 9, 2010. (Doc. # 44.) Upon an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the objection lacks merit for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

The objections mirror the arguments made by Plaintiff in response to the Magistrate Judge's show cause Order entered on April 28, 2010 (Doc. # 41). The argument that the statute of limitations would have expired if Ms. Patterson-Randolph had not filed this action on behalf of her minor son is incorrect. (Doc. # 44, at 2.) As previously noted by the Magistrate Judge, "under Alabama law, the statute of limitations is tolled until a minor reaches the age of majority, 19." (Doc. # 40, at 1.)

1. The objections (Doc. # 44) are OVERRULED.

2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 43) is ADOPTED.

3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

An appropriate judgment will be entered.


Summaries of

T.P.R. v. Montgomery Public Schools

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Jun 17, 2010
CASE NO. 2:08cv813-WKW (M.D. Ala. Jun. 17, 2010)
Case details for

T.P.R. v. Montgomery Public Schools

Case Details

Full title:T.P.R., by and though his parent, DONNA PATTERSON-RUDOLPH, Plaintiff, v…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Jun 17, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 2:08cv813-WKW (M.D. Ala. Jun. 17, 2010)

Citing Cases

Anderson v. Nebraska

interests pursuant to Rule 17(c). See, e.g., Adm'r-Benefits for Exxon Mobil Sav. Plan v. Williams, 567 F.…