Kent v. City of Tucson

Filing 69

ORDER ADOPTING 64 Report and Recommendations,and GRANTING 47 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tucson, City of. This action is hereby dismissed; Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 3/28/12. (SMBE)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ann Kent,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

City of Tucson, a municipal corporation
of the State of Arizona

13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 09-280-TUC-FRZ (JJM)
ORDER

15
16

Before the Court for consideration is Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for

17

Summary Judgment and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

18

Judge. This action, based on gender discrimination in the workplace, was referred to

19

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and

20

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1

21

and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

22

of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

23

Following review of the Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s response in opposition , and

24

Defendant’s reply, Magistrate Judge Marshall issued her Report and Recommendation on

25

September 26, 2011, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of

26

the record, grant Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

27
28

The Report and Recommendation provides a thorough discussion of the facts, legal
standards and in-depth analysis of the issues presented.

1

The Report and Recommendation advised “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days

2

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

3

written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a)

4

and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

5

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations were timely filed on

6

October 17, 2011, requesting the Court review this matter de novo and decline to adopt the

7

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, arguing that there is sufficient evidence from

8

which a reasonable jury might conclude that Plaintiff was indeed the victim of gender-based

9

discrimination.

10
11

Defendant filed a response thereto, requesting the Court adopt the Report and
Recommendation and grant the motion for summary judgment.

12

The Court finds, after de novo review of the matters presented, including the Report

13

and Recommendation, Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

14

Plaintiff’s response in opposition, and Defendant’s reply, in addition to Plaintiff’s objections

15

to the Report and Recommendation and Defendant’s response thereto, that the findings of

16

the Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions

17

of law by this Court.

18

Based on the foregoing,

19

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

20

(Doc. 64) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of

21

law by this Court;

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary

23

Judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED and this action is hereby dismissed; Judgment shall be

24

entered accordingly.

25
26

DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.

27
28
-2-