Arnold v. City and County of Denver

Filing 130

ORDER ADOPTING 114 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The 119 Objections of the plaintiff are OVERRULED. Defendant's 65 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Plaintiff's 91 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/23/2015. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00290-REB-CBS
VALERIE ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DENVER, COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [#65]1 filed November, 10 2014; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment [#91] filed November 12, 2014; and (3) the Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#114] filed December 19, 2014. The plaintiff filed
objections [#119] to the recommendation, and the defendant filed a response [#127] to
the objections. I overrule the objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the parties object. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objections, the response to the objections, and the applicable

1

“[#65]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

case law. Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed her pleadings
and other filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
As detailed in the recommendation [#119], the plaintiff, Valerie Arnold, asserts
claims of sex discrimination in employment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17. Correctly, the magistrate judge
concludes that the evidence in the record shows there are disputed issues of material
fact related to both the sex discrimination claim and the retaliation claim. Given those
issues, the magistrate judge recommends, of course, that the two motions for summary
judgment be denied. Nothing in the objections filed by Ms. Arnold undermines the
rationale and conclusions of the magistrate judge. The recommendation is detailed,
well reasoned, and correct. Therefore, I approve and adopt the recommendation and
overrule the objections.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#114] filed
December 19, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections [#119] of the plaintiff are OVERRULED;
3. That the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#65] filed November,
10 2014, is DENIED; and

2

4. That the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#91] filed
November 12, 2014, is DENIED.
Dated January 23, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3