Ross v. Teleperformance USA Inc et al
Filing
46
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 34 ); (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 25 ); (3) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECT IONS (Doc. 36 ); (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND URGENT MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 37 ); AND (5) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE (Docs. 43 , 44 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 11/25/2013. (mr1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
KEEYSA ROSS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TELEPERFORMANCE USA, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:13-cv-38
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 34); (2) GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 25); (3) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS (Doc. 36); (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND URGENT MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 37); AND
(5) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE (Docs. 43, 44)
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed
by Defendants (Doc. 25) and the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge
(Doc. 34) recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied
in part. Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 36) to the Report and Recommendations.
Defendants did not file objections and the time for doing so has expired. Defendants did
respond to the Objections filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 40). The issues are now ripe for decision
by the Court.
In conjunction with her Objections to the Report and Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment and requests that the Court
consider a more definite statement. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for partial
summary judgment is supported by mere allegations and information insufficient find the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request
for partial summary judgment, but without prejudice to re-filing at or near the conclusion of
discovery. The Court further finds no basis to grant Plaintiff’s request for consideration of a
more definite statement. Based on the foregoing, these Motions (Doc. 37) are DENIED.
Plaintiff also moves to strike Defendants’ Response to her Objections. (Docs. 43,
44). Plaintiff’s Motions in this regard sets forth no clear basis upon which the Court can
strike Defendant’s response. In fact, Plaintiff’s request to strike is more akin to a reply in
support of her Objections. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike
Defendants’ response to her objections. (Docs. 43, 44).
With regard to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) and the Report and
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 34), as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), upon reviewing the Motion and the comprehensive findings of
the Magistrate Judge de novo, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations
(Doc. 34) of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety; (2) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 35); and (3) OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 36). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Title VII and Ohio Rev.
Code § 4112.02(I) claims for retaliation remain pending. All other claims asserted in the
First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/25/13
/s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
2
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?