McKee v. AT&T Mobility Corporation
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 12 Report and Recommendation and GRANTING the 10 Motion to Substitute Party. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted against AT&T Mobility Corporation are dismissed with prejudice, and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC is substituted as the sole Defendant in this action. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/29/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
GAIL MCKEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-36-WSD-ECS
AT&T MOBILITY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III’s
Report and Recommendation [12] (“R&R”) on the parties’ Joint Motion to
Substitute AT&T Mobility Services, LLC for the Incorrectly Named Corporate
Defendant (“Motion to Substitute”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2013, Plaintiff Gail McKee (“Plaintiff”) filed her Complaint
[1] asserting claims for employment discrimination against Defendant AT&T
Mobility Services Corporation (“AT&T Corp.”). On April 18, 2013, AT&T
Mobility Services, LLC (“AT&T LLC”) filed an Answer [4] and asserted that it is
the proper Defendant in this action and that it was improperly identified as AT&T
Corp. in the Complaint.
On June 20, 2013, the parties jointly submitted their Motion to Substitute
seeking the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiff’s claims against AT&T
Corp. and the substitution of AT&T LLC for AT&T Corp. as the Defendant. In
their Motion, the parties agree that AT&T Corp. was improperly named and that
AT&T LLC was Plaintiff’s employer at all relevant times.
On July 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Scofield issued his R&R recommending
that the Motion to Substitute be granted. Neither party filed an objection to the
R&R.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. V 2011);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation,
a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
2
B.
Analysis
The parties do not object to Judge Scofield’s recommendation that their
Motion to Substitute be granted. The Court does not find plain error in this
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (authorizing the amendment of
pleadings with the opposing party’s written consent); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)
(authorizing the voluntary dismissal of an action by “a stipulation of dismissal
signed by all parties who have appeared”). Accordingly, the Court adopts the
R&R.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield
III’s Report and Recommendation [12] is ADOPTED. The parties’ Joint Motion
to Substitute AT&T Mobility Services, LLC for the Incorrectly Named Corporate
Defendant [10] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted against AT&T
Mobility Corporation are dismissed with prejudice, and AT&T Mobility Services,
LLC is substituted as the sole Defendant in this action.
3
SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2013.
4
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?