Dieffenbach v. Department of Revenue et al
Filing
127
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED and the MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 114 123 Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on June 29, 2011. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY R. DIEFFENBACH,
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
v.
:
:
EARL CRAGO, THOMAS SCOTT, MIKE :
GARMAN, JOE CRAIGWELL, PAUL
:
SLOAD, KIM GLASER, CARRIE FERREE,:
ALLEN JONES, DONALD PATTERSON, :
COLLEEN ALVIANI, BRIAN WILLIAMS, :
GREG FAJT, JULIA SHERIDAN, MOLLY :
LEACH, WILBUR HETRICK,
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, and
:
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,
:
Defendants
:
Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-967
(Chief Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Smyser)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The only claims remaining1 in this action are Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of Title
VII2 against Defendant Department of Revenue and alleging violations of the Pennsylvania
Human Rights Act against Defendants Alviani, Ferree, Williams, Jones, and Leach. Currently
pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report and Recommendation3 (Doc. No.
1
The Court previously granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for First Amendment
retaliation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 79.)
2
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it “an unlawful employment practice for
an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual's race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Plaintiff has not
presented any evidence to show that she was discriminated against on the basis of any such
characteristic. It appears that Plaintiff is actually attempting to raise a claim under the ADEA for
age discrimination. Ultimately, however, this distinction does not affect the outcome of
Plaintiff’s suit.
3
The Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provide
that any party may file written objections to a magistrate’s proposed findings and
1
123) that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims (Doc. No. 114) be
granted. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum labeled “Plaintiff’s, Pro Se, Reply Brief Objection to
Court Report and Recommendation Dated June 10, 2011.” (Doc. No. 124.) In that
memorandum, Plaintiff urges the Court to strike Magistrate Smyser’s Report and
Recommendation. However, Plaintiff fails to lodge any actual objection to the Report and
Recommendation. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will adopt Magistrate Smyser’s
Report and Recommendation and grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report and Recommendation turned on whether Plaintiff
exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, Defendants contend that the claims Plaintiff
raised in his administrative complaint are unrelated to the claims raised in Plaintiff’s civil
complaint. The issues that may be raised in a civil action are defined by “the scope of the EEOC
investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.”
Atkinson v. Lafayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447, 453 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Clay v. Advanced
Computer Applications, 559 A.2d 917, 919-20 (Pa. 1989) (holding PHRA claims must be raised
with the PHRC prior to those claims being litigated in court). In Plaintiff’s administrative
complaint he asserted two claims of age discrimination, alleging his supervisors, including
Defendant Ferree retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting younger workers who took extended
breaks without being disciplined and alleging that Defendant Ferree gave him a warning for
taking an extended break while younger workers were not disciplined for the same activity.
(Doc. No. 117-4 at 3-4.) Plaintiff’s civil complaint, however, raises claims of retaliation for
recommendations. In deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify the Report and
Recommendation, the Court is to make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2
testifying on behalf of an African American coworker and uncovering corruption in the
Department of Revenue. (Doc. No 51.) To the extent that these claims assert violations of Title
VII, the ADEA, or the PHRA, they were not within the scope of any potential administrative
investigation that could have reasonably grown out of Plaintiff’s administrative complaint. The
claims are therefore not exhausted, and Magistrate Judge Smyser properly recommended that the
motion for summary judgment be granted.4
Finally, Defendant Leach has neither entered an appearance nor been served in this case.
On January 12, 2010, Judge Muir ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendant Leach before February 9,
2010. (Doc. No. 35.) Plaintiff has not served Defendant Leach. Therefore, he shall be
dismissed from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
ACCORDINGLY, on this 29th day of June 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 123) is ADOPTED and the motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED (Doc. No. 114). The clerk of court is directed to close the case.
S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
4
Although not addressed in the Report and Recommendation, Defendants are also correct
that Defendants’ actions do not rise to the level of a hostile work environment as alleged in
Plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, summary judgment would be warranted on this basis as well.
3
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?