Turner v. HCR Manor Care

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety dkt. no. 19 . DENIES the motion to dismiss dkt. no. 9 ), GRANTS the motion for summary judgment dkt. no. 9 ), and ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and stricken from the Courts docket. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 11/28/2012. (Copy counsel of record via CM/ECF, pro se plaintiff via certified mail)(jmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
SARAH TIFFANY MARANDA TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV24
(Judge Keeley)

HCR MANORCARE,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 31, 2012, the pro se plaintiff, Sarah Tiffany
Maranda Turner (“Turner”), filed a complaint pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”), as amended, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended. On
March 13, 2012, the defendant, HCR Manorcare (“HCR”) filed a motion
to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. Turner
responded on May 7, 2012, and HCR replied on May 7, 2012. The Court
referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge John S.
Kaull for a report and recommendation in accordance with LR Civ.P.
72.01(d)(6).
On October 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Opinion
and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), in which he recommended that
HCR’s motion to dismiss be denied, but its motion for summary
judgment be granted and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.
(Dkt. No. 19). The magistrate judge determined Turner’s complaint
to be time-barred under the CRA and ADA because she did not file
her complaint with this Court within 90 days of receiving her
notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

Judge

Kaull

further

found

that

Turner

had

not

TURNER v. HCR MANORCARE

1:12CV24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
demonstrated that she was entitled to equitable tolling of the
statutory 90-day filing period.
The R&R also specifically warned Turner that her failure to
object to the recommendation would result in the waiver of any
appellate rights she might otherwise have on this issue. The
parties did not file any objections.* Consequently, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (dkt. no. 19),
DENIES the motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 9), GRANTS the motion for
summary judgment (dkt. no. 9), and ORDERS that this case be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and stricken from the Court’s docket.
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated: November 28, 2012.

/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only waives
the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any
obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d
198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).

2