Williams v. Parker Hannifin

Filing 31

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 26 Report and Recommendationgranting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 8/21/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES DAVIN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 1:16cv412

Plaintiff,

District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Bowman

v.
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the April 10, 2017 Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge, which recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff timely filed his Objection to the Report on April 13,
2017. (Doc. 27). Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s Objection. (Doc. 28).
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND/FACTS
Plaintiff brings this action against his former employer, Defendant Parker-Hannifin

Corporation. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. (Doc. 2). He alleges that he was discriminated against because of his race and age. The
Magistrate Judge’s R&R recites the facts in great detail and the same will not be repeated here
except as necessary to address Plaintiff’s objections.
In recommending granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish his discrimination claims through indirect
evidence. See White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 391 (6th Cir. 2008).

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a

dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review,
the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review: “[a] general
objection to the entirety of the Magistrate [Judge]’s report has the same effect as would a failure
to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Nevertheless, the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will be construed liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff appears to raise the following objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R: 1) the

Magistrate Judge giving more weight to Defendant’s statements than his; 2) the Magistrate Judge
stating that Cy French was the plant manager at Eaton; 3) the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Plaintiff failed to show he was replaced and that he was treated differently; and 4) the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion with respect to the mileage policy. (See generally Doc 27). Plaintiff’s
objections are unpersuasive.
First, Plaintiff objects to “the magistrate taking the lies from Parker and making this
recommendation as if their words are true and mine are false.” (Id. at PageID 726). Plaintiff
appears to possess a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Court can consider when
deciding a motion for summary judgment. In response to a motion for summary judgment, “a
plaintiff cannot rely on ‘mere allegations’ with respect to each standing element, ‘but must set

2

forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts . . .’ ” McKay v. Federspeil, 823 F.3d 862, 867
(6th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). Other evidence includes depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, declarations, stipulations, admissions, and interrogatory
answers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Here, the Magistrate Judge did not take Defendant at its word.
Rather, she relied on evidence submitted in support of Defendant’s arguments. (See e.g. Docs.
18, 19-1, 19-2, 19-3, 19-4, 19-5, 19-6, 19-7, 19-8). Plaintiff, on the other hand, failed to produce
any evidence, relying instead on mere allegations in support of his arguments. Allegations do
not constitute evidence properly considered at the summary judgment stage.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s objections on this point are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff next objects to the Magistrate Judge stating that Cy French was the plant
manager at the Eaton plant, alleging instead that he was the plant manager at Brookville. The
undisputed evidence presented, however, establishes Mr. French is currently the plant manager at
Parker’s Eaton, Ohio tube fitting facility. (Doc. 19-5 at ¶ 4). Regardless, this fact is not material
to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion and does not change the outcome. Plaintiff’s objection is
OVERRULED.
Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to show he
was replaced and that he was treated differently. Plaintiff argues he “gave many examples of
how [he] was discriminated against because of [his] race and age. These examples clearly
showed [he] was treated differently than other employees in the company.” (Doc. 27, PageID
726). He asserts once again that Defendant never hired someone to replace him because of this
lawsuit. He provides no evidence in support of his argument. Plaintiff’s perfunctory statement
is nothing more than a theory, and does not constitute evidence for the Court’s consideration. As
for his examples of discrimination, he states he can provide additional evidence at trial.

3

However, he has provided no evidence to date, and his conclusory allegations are not sufficient
to defeat summary judgment. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.
Finally, Plaintiff objects “to mileage policy the magistrate insinuates that is was only
violated in one part.” (Doc. 27, PageID 727). He seems to contend the entire policy, as opposed
to just his reimbursement for travel to Columbus, Ohio, was violated. He argues there are emails
to prove the mileage policy was changed for him. Once again, he failed to produce the emails he
so vehemently argues exist. Rather, as the Magistrate Judge explained, the mileage policy
applied to Plaintiff is consistent with Defendant’s written Global Travel Policy on Travel and
Related Business Expenses. (Doc. 19-4). Moreover, Johns and Reeves both averred in their
affidavits that the policy applied to Plaintiff was the same policy applied to Plaintiff’s
predecessor. (Doc. 19-1 at ¶ 18; Doc. 19-3 at ¶ 14). While Plaintiff argues this is not true, he
provides no evidence to the contrary.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection on this point is

OVERRULED.
It is worth noting that Plaintiff also appears to object to the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. 27,
PageID 727-28). General objections to the entirety of the magistrate judge’s report have the
same effect as a failure to object. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. Consequently, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R in this regard is without merit and is insufficient to direct the
Court’s attention to any particular issues contained therein.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 27) are OVERRULED and

the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 26) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.

4

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This matter shall be CLOSED and
TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court

5