Brown v. Bull's Eye Express

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Adopting the 21 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Smyser; granting in part and denying in part 15 defendants' motion for summary judgment; placing the case on the 11/2011 trial term w/jury selection set for 11/2/2011, pre-trial conference set for 10/3/2011 (time to be set). Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 8/19/11. (km, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PATTY A. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
BULL’S E YE EXPRESS,
Defendant.

1:09-cv-2529
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. J. Andrew Smyser

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
August 19, 2011
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser (Doc. 21), filed on July 27, 2011,
which recommends that we grant in part and deny in part the Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgement. (Doc. 15). No objections to the R&R have been filed
by either party and the time to do so has lapsed.1 Accordingly, this matter is ripe
for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, we shall adopt the R&R in its
entirety and this matter shall be listed for trial on the remaining claims.

1

Objections were due by August 15, 2011.
1

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report
before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the
Third Circuit, however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874,
878 (3d Cir. 1987). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating
“the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the
loss of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.
Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa.
1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court’s
examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.
II.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Patty Brown (“Plaintiff” or “Brown”) filed this action, pro se, on

December 24, 2009 claiming that her former employer, Defendant Bull’s Eye
Express (“Defendant”), discriminated against her because she is female. She claims
that the Defendant treated her less favorably then male employees by not providing
2

her a raincoat when she was required to perform outdoor work although raincoats
were provided to male employees. She also claims that the Defendant engaged in
sex-based discrimination related to employer-provided uniforms, overtime, pay and
job assignments. Plaintiff claims her ultimate discharge from employment was the
result of sex-based discrimination. Accordingly, she brings claims pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims on
March 31, 2011. (Doc. 15). The Motion was fully briefed by the parties and,
thereafter, on July 27, 2011, Magistrate Judge Smyser rendered the instant R&R,
recommending that the Motion be denied in part and granted in part. Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Smyser recommends that the Motion be denied with respect to
Plaintiff’s claims regarding: (1) the distribution of raincoats to employees on
August 16, 2005; (2) discriminatory termination; and (3) discrimination in pay
related to her August 2005 New Jersey trip. The Magistrate Judge recommends that
summary judgment should be granted with respect to all other claims of
discrimination alleged by Plaintiff.
As we have already mentioned, neither Defendant nor the Plaintiff have filed
objections to this R&R. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that led the
Magistrate Judge to the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in its

3

entirety. With a mind towards conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash the
reasoning of the Magistrate Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to this
document, as it accurately reflects our consideration and resolution of the case sub
judice.
Inasmuch as the discovery period in this matter has expired and dispositive
motions have now been disposed of, this matter will be placed on a trial term.2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The R&R of Magistrate Judge Smyser (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED in is
entirety.

2.

The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent reflected
in this Memorandum and Order and as in the R&R.

3.

This case is placed on the November 2011 trial term with Jury
Selection to commence on November 2, 2011. A pre-trial conference
shall be conducted on October 3, 2011 at a time to be set by further
Order of this Court.

2

If the parties desire to mediate this matter, they shall contact the Court via letter filed on
the docket. Additionally, if the parties consent to Magistrate Judge Smyser presiding over trial in
this matter, they shall so advise the Court via letter filed on the docket.
4

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

5