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)

Download PDF
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?