Crowe v. Leroy Central School District et al
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 36 granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk of Court to close case. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/7/2013. (JMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DECISION AND ORDER
LEROY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
The instant employment discrimination case, involving claims that
defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. §621,
et. seq.) was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1), for supervision of all pre-trial proceedings. Defendant filed a
motion for summary judgment on September 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 29)
On March 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment
be granted and plaintiff’s complaint dismissed. (Dkt. No. 36). Magistrate Judge
McCarthy found, after construing the evidence in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie claim of age
discrimination. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that plaintiff’s
reassignment from teaching 11th grade English to teaching 9th grade English did
not constitute an adverse employment action, and that plaintiff could not show
that the defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for the transfer served as a pretext
for discrimination based on age.
On March 25, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to Magistrate Judge
McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 37). Defendant filed a
response to plaintiff’s objections on April 9, 2013 and plaintiff filed a reply on April
22, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 40 and 41) The Court determined that oral argument was
unnecessary, and deemed the matter submitted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made.1 Upon de novo review, and after reviewing the
parties’ submissions, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s
recommendation to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss
plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s
Report and Recommendation, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
In its response, defendant argues that because plaintiff has failed to
specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which he
objects, this Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear error only.
Dambrowski v. Astrue, 590 F. Supp.2d 579, 581. However, the Court finds that plaintiff
did specifically object to the portion of the Report and Recommendation wherein the
Magistrate Judge finds that plaintiff was not subject to an adverse employment action
and also specifically objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that plaintiff cannot
demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the transfer, offered by
defendant, were pretextual. Thus, the Court considers those portions of the Report and
Recommendation in accordance with the de novo standard of review.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: June 7, 2013
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?