Gerovic v. City and County of Denver et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 63 Recommendation. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on November 18, 2020. (rvill, )
Case 1:19-cv-03710-RM-NRN Document 69 Filed 11/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 19-cv-03710-RM-NRN
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a Body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado,
acting by and through its DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and FACILITIES
LEROY LEMOS, in his official capacity as Facilities Management Operations Supervisor at the
Department of General Services, and in his individual capacity;
MURPHY ROBINSON, in his official capacity as Executive Director of General Services, and
in his individual capacity;
JAMES E. WILLIAMSON, in his official capacity as Facilities Management Operations
Director at the Department of General Services, and in his individual capacity;
KEVIN O’NEILL, in his official capacity as Facilities Management Operations Deputy Director
at the Department of General Services, and in his individual capacity; and,
JOEL WOMICK, in his official capacity as Assistant Director of Operations of Facilities
Management Operations at the Department of General Services, and in his individual capacity,
This matter is before the Court on the September 30, 2020, Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (ECF No. 63) to grant in part and deny in part
Defendants’ renewed motion for partial dismissal (ECF No. 55) of Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court accepts and adopts the recommendation, and it is incorporated herein by reference. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff initially filed this lawsuit in December 2019, subsequently amending her
complaint twice. As pled in the second amended complaint, Defendants seek dismissal of (1)
Case 1:19-cv-03710-RM-NRN Document 69 Filed 11/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under Title VII for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies and failure to state a claim and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for failure to state a claim; (2)
Defendants Murphy Robinson and Kevin O’Neil for lack of personal participation; and (3)
Plaintiff’s claim that she was denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as
untimely. (ECF No. 21.) After the motion was fully briefed and arguments were heard, the
magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible hostile work environment
claim under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that Plaintiff’s equal protection claim was not
barred by the statute of limitations; and that claims against Defendants Robinson and O’Neal
sufficiently alleged actionable conduct as to both men. (ECF No. 63 at 14, 18, 20.)
The recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen days after being served a copy of the recommendation. The parties did not object, and
the time to do so has expired.
“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167
(10th Cir. 1991). The Court concludes the magistrate judge’s analysis was thorough and sound
and discerns no clear error on the face of the record.
In accordance with the forgoing, the Court:
(1) ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 63);
(2) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the renewed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 55);
(3) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims for hostile work environment as such claims may be
contained within Plaintiff’s First and Third claims for relief; and
(4) ALLOWS Plaintiff’s Fourth claim for relief and all claims against Defendants O’Neal
and Robinson to proceed.
Case 1:19-cv-03710-RM-NRN Document 69 Filed 11/18/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
DATED this 18th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
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?