Daviss et al v. School District Number 1, in the City and County of Denver

Filing 47

ORDER Adopting 44 August 24, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint" (Doc. # 23 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as indicated in the attached Order. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 09/11/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00795-CMA-KMT
TRELLANY DAVISS, and
SHARRON KEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 1, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
a/k/a DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AUGUST 24, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the August 24, 2015 Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya that Defendant School District
Number 1’s “Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint” (Doc. # 23) be granted in part and
denied in part. (Doc. # 44.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.
(Doc. # 44 at 14-15.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge
Tafoya’s Recommendation were filed by either party. “In the absence of timely
objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard

it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendant’s
Motions to Dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court
concludes that Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and
recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tafoya as the findings and conclusions of this
Court, and, pursuant to the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint” (Doc. # 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Specifically, it is GRANTED with respect to the following claims, which are hereby
dismissed in this matter:
a) Plaintiff Daviss’ and Plaintiff Key’s First Claim for Relief for age-based hostile
work environment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA);
b) Plaintiff Daviss’ Second Claim for Relief for race-based hostile work
environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
c) Plaintiff Daviss’ and Plaintiff Key’s Third Claim for Relief for retaliation in
violation of the ADEA; and

2

d) Plaintiff Daviss’ and Plaintiff Key’s Fourth Claim for Relief for retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint”
(Doc. # 23) is DENIED with respect to the following claims, which remain in this matter:
a) Plaintiff Daviss’ and Plaintiff Key’s First Claim for Relief for age discrimination
in violation of the ADEA; and
b) Plaintiff Daviss’ Second Claim for Relief for race-based discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
DATED: September 11, 2015
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3