Johnson v. New GM et al

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting 20 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,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 13-15222

NEW GM, et al.,

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

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and
Recommendation of April 3, 2014 (Dkt. 20), recommending that Defendants’ motion
to dismiss (Dkt. 14) 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. 21)
to the Report and Recommendation; Defendant did not file any objections but did
file a response to Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 22). 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 claims
against Defendants are time-barred for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation. The only objections Plaintiff appears to make as to the
Magistrate Judge’s determination of the timeliness of the claim are Objections 4
and 5 (Dkt. 21 at 6–7). In Objection 4, Plaintiff appears to argue her termination
date is “misconstrued” and that it ignores her attempt to “complete the perquisite
[sic] steps of administrative review. In Objection 5, Plaintiff appears to argue that
any delay should be excused because Plaintiff did not know and could not
reasonably have known about the alleged discrimination. Both of these objections
are clearly meritless because: (1) the record makes it clear that Plaintiff initially
filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and then
failed to exercise her right to sue within the time allotted; and (2) 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. 20.)
Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2

Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14) 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

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