DeGourville v. Andrews International

Filing 84

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 80 Recommendation is correct. Granting 64 Defendant Andrews International's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment shall enter on the Amended Complaint in favor of this Defendant and against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint against the individually named Defendants, Tom Dahl, Robert Wibben, Pete Bradley, Tom Parrish, and Marla Gibson is dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/22/2014. (eseam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 12-cv-01784-LTB-CBS
ANTHONY E. DEGOURVILLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL,
TOM DAHL,
ROBERT WIBBEN,
PETE BRADLEY,
TOM PARRISH, and
MARLA GIBSON,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________

This case is before me on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and
served on August 6, 2014 recommending that the Motion of Defendant Andrews
International (Doc 64) be granted and that judgment be entered on the Amended Complaint
in favor of this Defendant against the Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge has thoroughly and
comprehensively reviewed the Defendant’s Motion as to the Plaintiff’s discrimination claims
based on race, color, national origin, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 200e(5) and his claim of discrimination based
on age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 and
violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601. As a part of the thorough and
comprehensive analysis of Defendant Andrews International’s Summary Judgment motion,

the Magistrate Judge also notes that Defendants Tom Dahl, Robert Wibben, Pete Bradley,
Tom Parrish, and Marla Gibson have not been served within the 120-day service
requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Indeed more than 720 days have passed since the
filing of the Amended Complaint and the record before the Court reflects that these
individual defendants have not been served in this action to date. Nor have they filed a
waiver of service or appeared in this case.
The Plaintiff has filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Although the objections arguably lack the required specificity, I will, nevertheless, consider
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo in light of the file and record in this case.
Upon de novo review, I conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is correct.
I also conclude that the individually named Defendants have not been served timely or
appeared in this case. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Defendant Andrews International’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc 64) is GRANTED and judgment shall enter on the Amended Complaint in
favor of this Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint against the
individually named Defendants, Tom Dahl, Robert Wibben, Pete Bradley, Tom Parrish, and
Marla Gibson is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
DATED:

August 22, 2014