Smith v. United States Gypsum Company, Inc.
Filing
24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick 23 ; GRANTING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 15 as to Plaintiff's Title VII discrimination claim; the Court DECLINING to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's PA Human Relations Act claim; DIRECTING the clerk to close the case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 11/24/14. (km)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTEEN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 4:13-cv-02122
(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)
ORDER
November 24, 2014
The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the October
17, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick
(ECF No. 23). No objections or responses have been filed, so this Court has
reviewed the R&R for abuse of discretion. Cf. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d
874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (although the court is not required to review magistrate
judge’s report absent objections, “the better practice is for the district judge to
afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report”).
Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s
recommendation, the Court will not rehash the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge
and will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s report and recommendation is
ADOPTED (ECF No. 23).
2.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination claim.
3.
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s Pennsylvania Human Relations Act claim.
4.
The Clerk is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:
/s Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
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?