Franklin v. Eelnurme et al
Filing
55
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 54 Report and Recommendation, and granting defendant's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Merissa Franklin,
Case No. 13-11329
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc.,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
NOVEMBER 13, 2014 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [54] AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [47]
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's November 13, 2014 report and
recommendation [54] on Defendant's motion for summary judgment [47]. Defendant seeks
summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII
following her termination from Defendant. This is Plaintiff's only remaining claim in this
case. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendant's motion for summary
judgment and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Neither party has filed
objections. "[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge's report[] releases the Court from
its duty to independently review the matter." Sloan v. Sumner, No. 13-12163, 2014 WL
3870627, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2014) (citation omitted). The Court nevertheless agrees
with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS
the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. Defendant's motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: December 4, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on December 4, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager
2
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?