Slough v. Redner's Markets, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER: 1. The r and r of MJ Carlson 24 DENYING dfts mtn for summary judgment is ADOPTED in its entirety.2. Dfts mtn for summary judgment 15 is DENIED.3. A revised case management schedule will issue by separate order.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 09/12/13. (ma)

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

GRETA S. SLOUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
REDNER’S MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1820
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 24),
recommending that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) be denied, and,
after an independent review of the record, and noting that defendant filed objections1
(Doc. 25) to the report on May 3, 2013, and that plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 27) to
defendant’s objections on May 16, 2013, and the court finding Judge Carlson’s analysis to
be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the court further

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)).

finding defendant’s objections to be without merit2 and squarely addressed by Judge
Carlson’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 24) DENYING
defendant’s motion for summary judgment is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

3.

A revised case management schedule will issue by separate order.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Chief Judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania

2

Defendant posits that Judge Carlson erred by failing to directly address its
contention that service of a right-to-sue letter upon a complainant’s counsel,
regardless of whether the complainant herself received notice, constitutes sufficient
service to trigger the prescribed 90-day limitations period. (Doc. 25, ¶ 1 (relying on
Loubriel v. Fondo Del Seguro Del Estado, 694 F.3d 139, 142 (1st Cir. 2012) (“[N]otice
to the attorney is notice to the claimant.”))). The court observes, however, as Judge
Carlson likewise did, that there remain several genuine disputes of material fact as
to whether and when plaintiff or her counsel received their notice of right-to-sue
letters. Any resolution of the notice issue at this juncture would thus be premature.