Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00601/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00601-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELVIN MASON, 

 Plaintiff, 

-vs- Case No. 1:07-cv-00601-KS 

WILLIAM E. CASSADY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________ 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion: 

MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (Doc. 

No. 57) 

FILED: May 27, 2008 

_____________________________________________________________ 

THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the MOTION be GRANTED. 

 On August 27, 2007, Plaintiff Melvin Mason (“Mason”) instituted this action by filing a 

Complaint (“Complaint”) against multiple Defendants. Doc. No. 1. On February 12, 2008, Defendant 

Prince Arnold filed a motion to strike against Mason. Doc. No. 41. The presiding judge, Honorable 

G. Kendall Sharp, referred the motion to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. Following 

the undersigned’s report and recommendation, Mason filed the present Motion for Clarification 

(“Motion”) inquiring “who, what, when, and how did this individual [the undersigned] gain any 

authority to sign Orders when the only Judge of record is Judge G. Kendall Sharp.” Doc. No. 57. 

Case 1:07-cv-00601-KS Document 64 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Again, Judge Sharp referred Mason’s Motion to the undersigned. This Court recommends that 

Mason’s Motion be granted and provides the following explanation of authority. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) provides the following: 

A judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter 

pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the 

pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information 

made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit 

maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may 

reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown 

that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 states the following: 

When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a 

magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the 

required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. 

A party may serve and file objections to the order within 10 days after being served 

with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected 

to. The district judgment in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set 

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (2008). Thus, the undersigned had authority to issue the report and 

recommendation following Judge Sharp’s referral of the Motion to Strike pursuant to Section 636(b). 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Mason’s Motion (Doc. No. 57) be GRANTED. 

 Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in 

this report within ten (10) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking 

the factual findings on appeal. 

RECOMMENDED in Orlando, Florida on June 10, 2008. 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00601-KS Document 64 Filed 06/17/08 Page 2 of 2