Cherryl Oliver v. Eric Mackey, et al.

M.D. Alabama

Cherryl Oliver v. Eric Mackey, et al.

DecidedDecember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00275

StatusUnknown

This text of Cherryl Oliver v. Eric Mackey, et al. (Cherryl Oliver v. Eric Mackey, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cherryl Oliver v. Eric Mackey, et al., (M.D. Ala. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

CHERRYL OLIVER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-275-ECM ) ERIC MACKEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R On November 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 34) to which no timely objections1 have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (doc. 34) is ADOPTED; 2. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 24) is GRANTED to the extent that the Plaintiff’s Title VII and equal protections claims are DISMISSED, and DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks dismissal of the construed state law claims;

1 Objections were due on December 4, 2025. (See doc. 34 at 11). On December 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting compensation and removal of the allegedly unlawful revocation of her teaching certificate, in which she says she “once again object[s] to the judge trying to dismiss her lawsuit.” (Doc. 35). To the extent the Plaintiff intended this filing to operate as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the objection is untimely, and she fails to explain why she was unable to meet the December 4, 2025 deadline. Moreover, even if the objection was timely, it is insufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 3. The Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim remains pending;

4. This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. DONE this 10th day of December, 2025.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

CHERRYL OLIVER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-275-ECM ) ERIC MACKEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R On November 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation (doc. 34) to which no timely objections1 have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (doc. 34) is ADOPTED; 2. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 24) is GRANTED to the extent that the Plaintiff’s Title VII and equal protections claims are DISMISSED, and DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks dismissal of the construed state law claims;

1 Objections were due on December 4, 2025. (See doc. 34 at 11). On December 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting compensation and removal of the allegedly unlawful revocation of her teaching certificate, in which she says she “once again object[s] to the judge trying to dismiss her lawsuit.” (Doc. 35). To the extent the Plaintiff intended this filing to operate as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the objection is untimely, and she fails to explain why she was unable to meet the December 4, 2025 deadline. Moreover, even if the objection was timely, it is insufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 3. The Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim remains pending;

4. This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. DONE this 10th day of December, 2025.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cherryl Oliver v. Eric Mackey, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherryl-oliver-v-eric-mackey-et-al-almd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack