McMillian v. Harris

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Anlando McMillian. Referred to Judge Katherine P. Nelson. (adk) filed by Anlando McMillian, 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Patrick R. Donahoe. (Attachments: # 1 McMillian De position Excerpts, # 2 Proposed Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law) (Baer, Charles) filed by Patrick R. Donahoe, 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 20 Amended Complaint filed by Anlando McMillian, 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Anlando McMillian, 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Patrick R. Donahoe, 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Anlando McMillian, 1 Complaint filed by Anlando McMillian, 7 Amended Complaint filed by Anlando McMillian. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 8/18/2014. (adk)

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT
 FOR
 THE

SOUTHERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 ALABAMA

SOUTHERN
 DIVISION

ANLANDO
 McMILLIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK
 R.
 DONAHOE,

Postmaster
 General,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL
 ACTION
 NO.

13-­‐00335-­‐CB-­‐N

ORDER

This
 Magistrate
 Judge
 has
 issued
 a
 Report
 and
 Recommendation,
 pursuant
 to

28
 U.S.C.
 §
 636(b)(1)(B),
 recommending
 that
 the
 Motion
 for
 Summary
 Judgment

filed
 by
 the
 Plaintiff
 be
 denied
 and
 that
 the
 Motion
 for
 Summary
 Judgment
 filed
 by

the
 Plaintiff
 be
 granted.

 (Doc.
 47.)

 Plaintiff
 has
 filed
 an
 objection
 asserting
 facts
 that

either
 were,
 or
 could
 have
 been,
 raised
 in
 summary
 judgment
 briefing.

 Those

additional
 facts,1
 even
 if
 true,
 have
 no
 bearing
 on
 the
 Magistrate
 Judge’s
 conclusion

that
 the
 incident
 complained
 did
 not
 rise
 to
 the
 level
 of
 severe
 or
 abusive
 conduct

and,
 therefore,
 failed
 to
 support
 a
 prima
 facie
 case
 of
 sexual
 harassment

discrimination
 or
 hostile
 work
 environment
 retaliation.

1
 Plaintiff
 argues
 that
 two
 additional
 facts
 should
 be
 taken
 into
 consideration.

First,
 he
 claims
 that
 the
 alleged
 harasser
 was
 not
 on
 duty
 the
 day
 the
 incident

occurred.

 That
 fact
 has
 nothing
 to
 do
 with
 whether
 the
 incident
 amounted
 to
 sexual

harassment.

 Second,
 he
 states
 that
 a
 supervisor
 came
 to
 the
 scene
 and
 can

corroborate
 his
 claim.

 Corroboration
 is
 not
 the
 issue.

 Even
 if
 the
 incident
 happened

as
 Plaintiff
 says
 it
 did,
 it
 does
 not
 rise
 to
 the
 level
 of
 discrimination
 or
 retaliation

actionable
 under
 Title
 VII.

For
 the
 foregoing
 reasons,
 the
 Court
 OVERRULES
 Plaintiff’s
 objections
 and

ADOPTS
 the
 Report
 and
 Recommendation
 of
 the
 Magistrate
 Judge.

DONE
 and
 ORDERED
 this
 the
 18th
 day
 of
 August,
 2014.

s/Charles
 R.
 Butler,
 Jr.

Senior
 United
 States
 District
 Judge