UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
| JAMES R. BLACKSTON, BRADLEY W. BARBER Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF ALABAMA, et. al., Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No.: 99-A-295-N |
|
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER, FILED ON 13 MARCH 2002, DOC. #116
Comes now Plaintiffs Blackston and Barber and objects to the Magistrate Judge's Order, Doc. #116, filed on 13 March 2002 and submits the following: 1. On page 9, ¶ 3 of the Magistrate Judge's Order, Doc. #116, the Magistrate Judge states, "Finally, the plaintiffs have again named Frank Gregory as a defendant in the Amendment.(1) In their own motion, filed on 9 March 2001, the plaintiffs requested leave to substitute Rich Hobson the newly appointed Director of the Administrative Office of Courts, "in place of Frank Gregory", who retired on 22 January 2001. The court granted the motion on 25 April 2001 (Doc. # 101), and Frank Gregory is no longer a defendant in this case." 2. Doc #101 states "For good cause, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Substitute Party, filed on 15 March 2001 (Doc. #99), is GRANTED." therefore the 9 March 2001 date stated in the Order (Doc. #116) is erroneous. 3. In the plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party (Doc. # 99), filed on 15 March 2001, the plaintiffs made a specific request to, "2. Retain Frank Gregory as a defendant in his individual capacity." (Doc. # 99, pg. 1, ¶6. (emphasis added) 4. The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party, (Doc. #99) without discussion. (See Magistrate Judge's Order, Doc. # 101) 5. The Magistrate Judge GRANTED, without discussion, the plaintiffs' request to: "Retain Frank Gregory as a defendant in his individual capacity." (emphasis added) (See plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party, (Doc. #99) and the Magistrate Judge's Order, (Doc. # 101)) 6. The Court simply stated, "For good cause, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Substitute Party, filed on 15 March 2001 (Doc. #99), is GRANTED." (See Order, Doc. #101) 7. Considering the above, the plaintiffs could safely construe that Frank Gregory is still a defendant in his individual capacity, pursuant to ¶6 of the plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party (Doc. #99) and the subsequent Court Order granting the plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party. ( Doc. #101 pg.1 ¶ 1.) Wherefore premises considered the plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to: 1. Honor the Court's Order (Doc. #101) on its face value, which would retain Frank Gregory as a defendant in his individual capacity. Respectfully submitted on 25 March 2002 ________________________ James R. Blackston ________________________ Bradley W. Barber
[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support] |