DAWLING v. SHAMROCK ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION

Filing 19

ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 8/21/2012 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (doc. # 15 ); that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENI ED IN PART. The Court dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction any race- or age- based discriminatory discharge claim. The Defendant's Motion is otherwise denied, and the Plaintiff's claims that Defendant engaged in race and ag e discrimination by transferring him from tank technician to a job with significantly different responsibilities are not dismissed and remain pending, without prejudice to a Motion for Summary Judgment after an appropriate time for discovery. (Lloyd, Donna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SCOTT M. DAWLING,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SHAMROCK ENVIRONMENTAL
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

1:12CV198

O-R-D-E-R

The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the court in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and, on June 25, 2012, was served on the parties in this action.
Plaintiff filed a “Response” to the Recommendation. (Doc. 18.) The Defendant did not object.
It is not clear that the Plaintiff’s response is in fact an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. In his response, the Plaintiff objects “to any decision other than a jury” trial in
connection with the claims as to which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
authorized Plaintiff to file suit. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation does not recommend
dismissing the claims raised by the Plaintiff in his EEOC charge – i.e., the claims concerning an
allegedly unlawful job transfer. The recommendation only recommends dismissing any claim
related to the Plaintiff’s discharge, which was not mentioned in the EEOC charge.
In any event, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s report and has made a de novo
determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge=s report. The Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge=s recommendation in full.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant=s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively,
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court
dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction any race- or age- based discriminatory discharge
claim. The Defendant’s Motion is otherwise denied, and the Plaintiff=s claims that Defendant
engaged in race and age discrimination by transferring him from tank technician to a job with
significantly different responsibilities are not dismissed and remain pending, without prejudice to
a Motion for Summary Judgment after an appropriate time for discovery.
This the 21st day of August, 2012.

________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3