Johnson v. Int'l Union (UAW) AFL-CIO et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING 22 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEBRA L. JOHNSON,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-15221

INT’L UNION (UAW) AFL-CIO, et al.,
Defendants.

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. DAVID R. GRAND
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and
Recommendation of April 3, 2014 (Dkt. 22), recommending that Defendant
International Union’s motion for a more definite statement or dismissal (Dkt. 17) be
granted.
The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections
“[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff filed timely objections (Dkt. 23)
to the Report and Recommendation; Defendant did not file any objections but did
file a response to Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 24). A district court must conduct a de
novo review of the parts of a Report and Recommendation to which a party objects.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation,
and Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s objections are very difficult to understand and
are often incoherent, but they appear to be mostly complaints about issues that are
irrelevant to the grounds upon which Magistrate Judge Grand has recommended
dismissal. Reviewing the matter de novo, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim
against the union is time-barred, and “Delphi World Headquarters” is not a proper
party, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. The only objection
Plaintiff appears to make as to the Magistrate Judge’s determination of the
timeliness of the claim is Objection 7 (Dkt. 23 at 7), which argues that any delay
should be excused because Plaintiff did not know and could not reasonably have
known about the alleged discrimination. This objection is clearly meritless because
the record makes it clear that Plaintiff was aware of the alleged discrimination, or
at least that she believed she had been discriminated against, long before she filed
this lawsuit such that the limitations period on her claims had run. (Dkt. 22.)
Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
Therefore, Defendant International Union’s motion for a more definite statement or
dismissal (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 30, 2014

2

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on June 30, 2014,
using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
By: s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

3