Muldowney v. K-Mart Corporation et al

Filing 65

ORDER adopting report of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick 61 in its entirety, DENYING deft's MSJ 22 w/ re: Count II of the complaint & GRANTED w/ re: Counts I & III of complaint, & noting revised case mgmt schedule will issue by separate order. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/18/13. (ki)

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

WILLIAM MULDOWNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
K-MART CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-2555
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick (Doc. 61), recommending the
court grant in part and deny in part the motion (Doc. 22) for summary judgment filed by
the defendants, and, after an independent review of the record, and noting that the
defendants filed objections1 (Doc. 62) to the report on October 11, 2013, and that plaintiff
filed a response (Doc. 63) to defendants’ objections on October 31, 2013, and the court
finding Judge Mehalchick’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported

1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

by the record, and the court further finding defendants’ objections to be without merit2
and squarely addressed by Judge Mehalchick’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 61) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick recommending that
the court grant in part and deny in part the defendants’ motion (Doc. 22) for
summary judgment is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Defendants’ motion (Doc. 22) for summary judgment is DENIED with
respect to Count II of the complaint and GRANTED with respect to Counts
I and III of the complaint.

3.

A revised case management schedule will issue by separate order.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2

Defendants object to the magistrate judge’s determinations at the first and
third stages of the three-step burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), contending that plaintiff has failed to
establish a prima facie case of retaliation and that he has further failed to show that
the defendants’ proffered legitimate reasons for his termination are mere pretext
for retaliation. Upon a review of the factual record before the court, and considering
the same in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the court fully agrees
with Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s analysis. The court will thus adopt the report
in its entirety and schedule this matter for trial.