Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grose v. Lew

United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Western Division

February 26, 2015

ANTHONY T. GROSE, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
JACOB J. LEW, Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The pro se Plaintiff, Anthony T. Grose, Sr., filed this employment discrimination action against the U.S. Treasury Secretary (“Secretary”). (ECF No. 1.) On January 13, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint except for the claims against the Secretary alleging discrimination on account of race, age, and disability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (ECF No. 8.) On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76), and Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment (ECF No. 77).

United States Magistrate Judge Claxton issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 30, 2014, in which she recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies be granted as to the claims stemming from EEO administrative complaints EEODFS-06-0847-F and EEODFS-07-1159-M and denied as to the claims arising from EEODFS-08-0166-F. (ECF No. 83 at 5-13.) In addition, Magistrate Judge Claxton recommended the parties’ motions for summary judgment be denied for failure to provide accurate citations to the evidence in the record, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Local Rule 56.1(a)-(b). (Id. at 17-20.)

On October 3, 2014, the Court adopted the R&R as to the motion to dismiss on the exhaustion issue. (ECF No. 98 at 4.) The Court also agreed that the motions for summary judgment should be denied, but allowed the motions to be renewed and set out specific requirements for briefing.[1] (Id. at 5-6.) After the motions for summary judgment were renewed (ECF Nos. 101 & 108), the Magistrate Judge issued another R&R on January 16, 2015 (ECF No. 113). She recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and that Defendant’s motion be granted on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either the Rehabilition Act, Title VII, or the ADEA.

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R on February 6, 2015. (ECF No. 116.) The Court has reviewed the parties’ motions and the applicable law, and has considered Plaintiff’s objections. While he vigorously asserts that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are incorrect and that both Magistrate Judge Claxton and the undersigned judge are biased against him, the Court finds that Plaintiff has still failed to establish a prima facie case of either race, age, or disability discrimination. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. She has thoroughly explained her decision, and the issuance of a more detailed written opinion would be unnecessarily duplicative and would not enhance this Court’s jurisprudence. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. For the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.