Howard v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 76

ORDER as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's 73 Recommendation is ADOPTED as further set out in the order; 2. Plaintiffs objections (Doc. 75 ) are OVERRULED; 3. Defendants Motion for Leave to Supplement its Evidentiary Submission (Doc. 61 ) is GRANTED; 4. Defendants Motion to Strike (Doc. 62 ) is DENIED, but to the extent it contains an objection, it is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part (see Doc. 73 , at 1417); 5. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51 ) is GRANTED; A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/16/2017. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
PONCE D. HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR
MANUFACTURING ALABAMA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-230-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On July 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 73)
to which Plaintiff timely objected (Doc. # 75). Upon an independent and de novo
review of the record and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections are due to be
overruled, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is due to be adopted.
Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation on numerous grounds, but none of
the objections has merit.
First, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred “by not focusing on the
overwhelming evidence that Denham has a history of harassing HMMA team
members and HMMA not responding to the harass[ment].” (Doc. # 75, at 1.) But
the Recommendation addressed this by discussing the previous disciplinary action

against Denham, and Howard did not present any evidence of other past misbehavior
for which a formal complaint was filed but no action was taken against Denham.
Second, Plaintiff claims that the Recommendation “weighed the evidence in
a manner unfavorable to [him]” and made improper credibility determinations. (See
Doc. # 75, at 2–3.) Again, the Recommendation did no such thing. It merely
examined the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and concluded that they
could not support a prima facie claim for employment discrimination or a showing
of “discriminatory motive.” (Doc. # 73, at 24, 27.)
Third, Plaintiff contends that the Recommendation erroneously found that
Defendant’s objections to portions of Plaintiff’s declarations were due to be
sustained. This finding, Plaintiff argues, was made on the basis that the declarations
were “self-serving.” (Doc. # 75, at 3.) To the contrary, the Recommendation found
that some of the relevant statements had no basis in personal knowledge, some were
overly vague, and others were too conclusory. It was on those grounds that the
Recommendation found that Defendant’s objections were due to be sustained. (Doc.
#73, at 14–17).
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff objects on other grounds, those grounds are
without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 73) is ADOPTED;
2

2.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 75) are OVERRULED;

3.

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement its Evidentiary

Submission (Doc. # 61) is GRANTED;
4.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. # 62) is DENIED, but to the extent

it contains an objection, it is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part (see
Doc. # 73, at 14–17);
5.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 51) is GRANTED;

A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 16th day of August, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3