Folsom v. McAbee Construction, Inc.

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 45 magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation; the court DENIES the defendants motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs claims of sexual harassment/sexually hostile environment and state law clai ms of outrage and negligent training, supervision and retention; the court GRANTS the defendants motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs claim of retaliation and DISMISSES the retaliation claim WITH PREJUDICE; the court GRANTS the defendants motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs claim of invasion of privacy and DISMISSES the invasion of privacy claim WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; Case reassigned to Judge Karon O Bowdre for all further proceedings; Judge Magistrate-Judge Harwell G Davis, III no longer assigned to case ; Please use case number 7:09-cv-01486-KOB for all further filings. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 8/14/12. (SAC )

FILED
2012 Aug-14 PM 03:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
DOROTHY FOLSOM,
Plaintiff
vs.
MCABEE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:09-cv-01486-KOB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 6, 2012, the magistrate judge entered his report and recommendation
(doc. 45) and gave the parties fourteen days to file objections to his recommendations
On June 20, 2012, the defendant filed objections to the report and recommendation.
(Doc. 46).
After careful consideration of the record in this case de novo, the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation and the defendant’s objections, the court
ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge and ACCEPTS his recommendations.
Therefore, the court DENIES the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
as to the plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment/sexually hostile environment and
state law claims of outrage and negligent training, supervision and retention because
Page 1 of 2

genuine disputes of material facts exist, making judgment inappropriate. However,
the court GRANTS the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s
claim of retaliation and DISMISSES the retaliation claim WITH PREJUDICE.
In its objections, the defendant notes that the magistrate judge did not address
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s invasion of
privacy claim. The plaintiff did not oppose the motion for summary judgment as to
the invasion of privacy claim in her response to the motion for summary judgment.
Therefore, the court GRANTS the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiff’s claim of invasion of privacy and DISMISSES the invasion of privacy claim
WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to REASSIGN this action to the undersigned for all
further proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2012.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2