Rivera-Cruz v. Hewitt Associates Caribe, Inc. et al
Filing
138
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Adopting 136 "Report and Recommendation." Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment at Docket No. 108 is granted. Plaintiff's claims against ARS under Title VII, ADEA, Law 100, Law 379, Law 80, Article 18 02 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code and breach of contract statutes are dismissed. By March 1, 2018, plaintiff shall show cause as to why her claims against ARS under the Puerto Rico Constitution should not be dismissed as well. See attached. Signed by Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez on 02/21/2018.(LMR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
NILDA RIVERA-CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL NO. 15-1454 (PAD)
v.
HEWITT ASSOCIATES CARIBE, INC.,
et al.
Defendant
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Delgado-Hernández, District Judge.
Before the court is co-defendant Aon Risk Solutions of Puerto Rico, Inc.’s motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 108), which plaintiff opposed (Docket No. 116). ARS replied
(Docket No. 129). The court referred the motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin
for report and recommendation (“R&R”) (Docket No. 133). On February 5, 2018, the magistrate
judge recommended that ARS’s motion be granted, warning that failure to file specific objections
by February 19, 2018 would constitute a waiver of the right to appellate review (Docket No. 136
at p. 7). No objections have been filed.
A district court may refer a pending motion to a magistrate judge for a report and
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Loc. Civ. Rule 72(b). Any
party adversely affected by the report and recommendation may file written objections within
fourteen days of being served with the magistrate judge’s report. Loc. Civ. Rule 72(d). See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of
“those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific
objection is made.” Ramos-Echevarria v. Pichis, Inc., 698 F.Supp.2d 262, 264 (D.P.R. 2010);
Nilda Rivera-Cruz v. Hewitt Associates Caribe, Inc. et al
Civil No. 15-1454 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 2
Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F.Supp.2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)). “Absent objection, . . .[a] district court ha[s] a right to assume
that [the affected party] agree[s] with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” López-Mulero v.
Vélez-Colón, 490 F.Supp.2d 214, 217-218 (D.P.R. 2007)(internal citations omitted). In reviewing
an unopposed report and recommendation, the court “needs only [to] satisfy itself by ascertaining
that there is no ‘plain error’ on the face of the record.” López-Mulero, 490 F.Supp.2d at 218; see
also, Toro-Méndez v. United States of America, 976 F.Supp.2d 79, 81 (D.P.R. 2013).
The court has made an independent examination of the entire record in this case and finds
that the magistrate judge’s findings are supported by the record and the law. Consequently, the
court hereby ADOPTS in its entirety the magistrate judge’s R&R for the reasons stated therein
(Docket No. 136), and, accordingly, GRANTS ARS’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No.
108), dismissing plaintiff’s claims against ARS under Title VII, ADEA, Law 100, Law 379, Law
80, Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code and breach of contract statutes.
By March 1, 2018, plaintiff shall show cause as to why her claims against ARS under the
Puerto Rico Constitution should not be dismissed as well, given that (i) ARS was not her employer,
and (ii) her claims under the Puerto Rico Constitution seem to be based on the events that allegedly
transpired while plaintiff was in the conference room carrying out her termination process. Her
motion shall include the legal grounds – including relevant statutes and case law arising out of
analogous factual and procedural settings – in support of her position.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of February, 2018.
s/Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández
PEDRO A. DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ
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?