Childrey v. CGI Technologies and Solutions et al(MAG+)

Filing 118

ORDER: After an independent and de novo review of the record, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Plaintiff's objections (doc. no. 115 ) are overruled. (2) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Jud ge (doc. no. 112 ) is adopted. (3) Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 90 ) is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff in all respects except for the claim described below. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/29/2017. (kh, )

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND
SOLUTIONS,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv616-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
After

an

independent

and

de

novo

review

of

the

record, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the
court as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s

objections

(doc.

no.

115)

are

overruled.
(2)

The

recommendation

of

the

United

States

Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 112) is adopted.
(3) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc.
no. 90) is granted.

Judgment is entered in favor of

defendant and against plaintiff in all respects except
for the claim described below.

It appears that defendant and the magistrate judge
have overlooked a claim asserted by plaintiff, viz.,
that defendant transferred plaintiff in October 2012 to
work under the authority of Benjamin McCall and others,
and that this act constituted retaliation in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2 et seq. See Am. Compl. (doc. no. 47) ¶ 21(d).
Rather, defendant and the magistrate judge appear to
address only plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s failure
to transfer her promptly away from that new assignment
constituted

retaliation.

See

(doc. no. 112) at 24-25.
se,

does

judge’s

not,

in

her

Report

&

Recommendation

While plaintiff, who is pro
objection

recommendation,

to

“formally”

the

magistrate
make

this

distinction, she does recite the facts underlying the
October 12 retaliation claim.
retaliation

claim

regarding

Therefore, plaintiff’s
her

October

2012

transfer--which may or may not have merit--remains for
resolution on a renewed motion for summary judgment or
otherwise.

2

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge
for further appropriate proceedings.
DONE, this the 29th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3