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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?