Youngblood et al v. City of Georgiana, Alabama et al (MAG+) (2:19-cv-01072-ECM-JTA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: for these reasons and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' (Document 148) motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 10/20/2022. (es, )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the Defendant's (Document 106) motion for entry of final judgment is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 4/1/2022. (es, )

ORDER: Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's notices of interlocutory appeal (docs. (Document 83) and (Document 85) ) of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing defendants Beverly Rogers and Tonya Castleberry. Plaintiff also filed two separate mot ions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (docs. (Document 84) and (Document 86) ). Because the Memorandum Opinion and Order from which Plaintiff appeals is not a final judgment, see 28 U.S.C. 1291, and is not subject to an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) , the notices of appeal (docs. (Document 83) and (Document 85) ) are construed as containing motions to certify a question for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). For the reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion and Order (doc. (Document 74) ), the questions inv olved in the Plaintiff's appeals do not meet the statutory standard for certifying a question for interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motions to certify a question for interlocutory appeal (docs. (Document 83) and (Document 85) ) are DENIED, and the Plaintiff's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (docs. (Document 84) and (Document 86) ) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 10/25/2021. Furnished Appeals Clerk. (dmn, )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows that: 1. the (Document 68) Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED with respect to Dft Rogers' motion to dismiss and REJECTED with respect to Dft Castleberry's motion to dismiss; 2. Dft Rogers' (Document 49) motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the claims against her are DISMISSED; 3. Dft Castleberry's (Document 50) motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the claims against her are DISMISSED; 4. Dft Castleberry's (Document 50) motion for summary jud gment is DENIED as moot; 6. The Plfs' (Document 57) motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice; and 7. this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 9/14/2021. (bes, )