Ross v. Teleperformance USA Inc et al

Filing 94

DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 91 ); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 92 ); AND TERMINATING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 7/14/2014. (mr1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KEESYA D. ROSS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TELEPERFORMANCE USA,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:13-cv-38
Judge Timothy S. Black
Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Doc. 91); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 92); AND
TERMINATING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET
This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington. Pursuant to such reference,
the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on June 5, 2014,
submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 91). Plaintiff filed timely objections
(Doc. 92) and Defendants filed a response (Doc. 93). 1
1

In her objections, and for the first time in this case, Plaintiff argues that Defendant provided
shifting justifications for her termination, which is probative of pretext. However, Plaintiff
waived this argument because she failed to present the issue to the Magistrate Judge. See
Glidden Co. v. Kinsella, 386 F. App’x 535, 544 & n.2 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover, even if
Plaintiff’s argument were timely, she fails to evidence a genuine issue of material fact regarding
pretext. See Yost v. McCoy, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-206, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85302, at *22 (S.D.
Ohio June 18, 2013). Finally, Plaintiff fails to present evidence that Defendant did not honestly
believe its proffered reason for her termination. See Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 401
(6th Cir. 2009). Her opposition to summary judgment therefore fails.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby ADOPTED
in its entirety; and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations are
overruled. Accordingly:
1.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 86) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. 89) is DENIED as
untimely and MOOT;

3.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 70), Plaintiff’s motion for extension
of time (Doc. 72), and Defendants’ motion for protective order (Doc. 74)
are DENIED as MOOT;

4.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES Plaintiff
leave to appeal in forma pauperis. She remains free, however, to apply to
proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals; and

5.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon:

6.

This civil action is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 7/14/14

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

2