Ordonez v. Canyons School District

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 23 Motion to Dismiss ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 27 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/18/2014. (jds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

SONIA ORDONEZ,
Plaintiff,

ORDER AFFIRMING & ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

v.
Case No. 2:13CV245DAK
CANYONS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Defendant.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Evelyn Furse under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On May 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Furse issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s First and
Third Causes of Action. Plaintiff sought extensions to file objections to Magistrate Judge
Furse’s Report and Recommendation, which this court granted. Plaintiff filed the first part of her
objection on July 7, 2014, and her final objections on July 21, 2014. Defendant filed a response
to Plaintiff’s objections on August 11, 2014.
A Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is subject to de novo review by this
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court has reviewed the
record de novo with respect to the present motion.

Plaintiff does not specifically address the analysis in Magistrate Judge Furse’s Report and
Recommendation. Rather, she attempts to provide additional evidence to support her causes of
action. This evidence, however, fails for the same reason Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a
claim of disparate treatment discrimination and hostile work environment. There is no
connection between the actions taken against Plaintiff and her gender, race, or national origin.
Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations of discrimination with no supporting facts. While
Plaintiff did not get along with her co-workers, there is no evidence that it was the result of any
discriminatory animus.
Plaintiff’s specific allegations include statements too vague to demonstrate or infer
discrimination. She alleges that a co-worker stated that he could give her too much work because
she always forgives him; a co-worker stated that he was superior to her in every way; a coworker
gave her inconsistent instructions and asked her to perform tasks in a way that she felt was
unsafe. This conduct may be disagreeable, but it does not provide the basis for a discrimination
claim or hostile work environment claim.
After conducting a de novo review of the record with respect to the motion and
considering Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, the court finds no basis for
reversing or modifying the Report and Recommendation. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is
granted for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Furse’s Report and Recommendation. None
of Plaintiff’s arguments or additional evidence changes the applicable legal analysis. Therefore,
Magistrate Judge Furse’s May 29, 2014 Report and Recommendation is hereby affirmed and
adopted in its entirety as the Order of this court.

2

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the court dismisses
Plaintiff’s First and Third Causes of Action.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

3