Moursi v. Mission Essential Personnel et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the court finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation 57 and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Pollak's Report and Recommendation, the court (1) grants defendants' motion to dismiss 25 Counts Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten of the Amended Complaint, which allege claims un der Ga. Code Ann. § 45-19-29, and (2) grants defendant Rex Morford's motion to dismiss 25 all claims in the Amended Complaint as against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The parties shall appear before Magistrate Judge Pollak at the conference scheduled for March 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/27/2012. (Ravi, Sagar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
MONA MOURSI,
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

- against MISSION ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL and REX
MORFORD,

10-CV-4169 (KAM)(CLP)

Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On December 23, 2010, Mona Moursi (“plaintiff”) filed
an Amended Complaint against Mission Essential Personnel and Rex
Morford (collectively, “defendants”) asserting claims of quid pro
quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, gender
discrimination, religious discrimination, and retaliation under
Georgia, New York, and Ohio state laws.

(See generally ECF No.

18, Amended Complaint.)
On March 21, 2011, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants moved to dismiss the five claims
asserted under Georgia state law, specifically Counts Six through
Ten, on the grounds that the statue relied upon by plaintiff, Ga.
Code Ann. § 45-19-29, only protects public sector employees and
does not provide a private right of action.

(See ECF No. 30,

Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to
Dismiss at 3-5.)

Additionally, defendant Morford moved to

dismiss all the claims asserted against him pursuant to Federal

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (5) for lack of personal
jurisdiction and insufficient service of process, respectively.
(See id. at 5-9.)

Presently before the court is a Report and

Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on
February 27, 2012, recommending that this court grant defendants’
motions to dismiss in their entirety.

(ECF No. 57, Report and

Recommendation.)
On February 27, 2012, notice of the Report and
Recommendation was sent to the plaintiff and the defendants via
the court’s electronic filing system.

As explicitly noted at the

end of the Report and Recommendation and on the docket entry for
the Report and Recommendation, any written objections to the
Report and Recommendation were to be filed within fourteen (14)
days of receipt of the Report and Recommendation, or by March 15,
2012.

(Report and Recommendation at 17; Docket Entry dated

February 27, 2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b).

The statutory period for filing objections has expired,

and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been
filed.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Where no objection to the Report and

Recommendation has been filed, the district court “need only

2

28

satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of
the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189
(S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Upon a review of the Report and Recommendation, and
considering that the parties have failed to object to any of
Magistrate Judge Pollak’s thorough and well-reasoned
recommendations, the court finds no clear error in the Report and
Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the court.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate
Judge Pollak’s Report and Recommendation, the court (1) grants
defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, and
Ten of the Amended Complaint, which allege claims under Ga. Code
Ann. § 45-19-29, and (2) grants defendant Morford’s motion to
dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint as against him for
lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of
process.

The parties shall appear before Magistrate Judge Pollak

at the conference scheduled for March 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM.

(See

Minute Entry dated January 11, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2012
Brooklyn, New York
__________/s/_____
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

3