From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooker v. Fulton County

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Sep 12, 2006
No. 1:05-cv-982-GET (N.D. Ga. Sep. 12, 2006)

Summary

denying motion to strike when "witnesses and documents had already been identified during discovery"

Summary of this case from Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC

Opinion

No. 1:05-cv-982-GET.

September 12, 2006


ORDER


The above-styled matter is presently before the court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R R") [docket no. 112] granting defendants' motion for summary judgment [docket no. 87].

Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on July 29, 2005 asserting claims for racial discrimination against all defendants based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I) ("§ 1981 claim"), racial discrimination against all defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce her rights under section 1981 ("§ 1983/1981 claim") and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("§ 1983/Equal Protection claim") (Count II) and racial discrimination/retaliation claims based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. against defendants Fulton County and the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System (Count III).

On October 17, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Count I of plaintiff's amended complaint and denied the motion as to plaintiff's § 1983/§ 1981 claim in Count II of the Complaint. On May 25, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's remaining claims.

On August 15, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an R R granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1), each party may file written objections, if any, to the R R within ten (10) days of the receipt of an order. If any party serves and files written objections, the district court is required to conduct a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C). No objections have been filed. Therefore, the court ADOPTS AS UNOPPOSED and incorporates herein as if fully set forth the Magistrate Judge's R R [docket no. 112] GRANTING defendants' motion for summary judgment [docket no. 87]. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [docket no. 87] is GRANTED on all of plaintiff's claims.

Summary

The Magistrate Judge's R R [docket no. 112] GRANTING defendants' motion for summary judgment [docket no. 87] is ADOPTED AS UNOPPOSED and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [docket no. 87] is GRANTED on all of plaintiff's claims.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hooker v. Fulton County

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Sep 12, 2006
No. 1:05-cv-982-GET (N.D. Ga. Sep. 12, 2006)

denying motion to strike when "witnesses and documents had already been identified during discovery"

Summary of this case from Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC
Case details for

Hooker v. Fulton County

Case Details

Full title:MARY KAYE HOOKER, JAMES N, HATTEN, Clerk Plaintiff, v. FULTON COUNTY…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

Date published: Sep 12, 2006

Citations

No. 1:05-cv-982-GET (N.D. Ga. Sep. 12, 2006)

Citing Cases

Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC

Rather, the focus is on whether the moving party is aware that the affiant is an individual with discoverable…

Huffman v. City of Conroe, Texas

Plaintiff thus — in effect — made the necessary disclosure six months ago in the Spring of 2008. See Advisory…