ROSS v. TELEPERFORMANCE USA, INC., 3:13-cv-38. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20140715b19
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2014
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 91); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 92); AND TERMINATING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington. Pursuant to such reference, the Ma
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 91); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 92); AND TERMINATING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington. Pursuant to such reference, the Mag..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 91); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 92); AND TERMINATING THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on June 5, 2014, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 91). Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 92) and Defendants filed a response (Doc. 93).1
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety; and Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendations are overruled. Accordingly:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 86) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. 89) is DENIED as untimely and MOOT;
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 70), Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Doc. 72), and Defendants' motion for protective order (Doc. 74) are DENIED as MOOT;
4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. She remains free, however, to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals; and
5. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon:
6. This civil action is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In her objections, and for the first time in this case, Plaintiff argues that Defendant provided shifting justifications for her termination, which is probative of pretext. However, Plaintiff waived this argument because she failed to present the issue to the Magistrate Judge. See Glidden Co. v. Kinsella, 386 F. App'x 535, 544 & n.2 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover, even if Plaintiff's argument were timely, she fails to evidence a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. See Yost v. McCoy, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-206, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85302, at *22 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2013). Finally, Plaintiff fails to present evidence that Defendant did not honestly believe its proffered reason for her termination. See Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 401 (6th Cir. 2009). Her opposition to summary judgment therefore fails.
Source: Leagle
