United States District Court, W.D. New York
April 28, 2004.
WILLIE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff,
ADM MILLING CO. and ARCHE R DANIEL S MIDLAND CO RP., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD ARCARA, District Judge
Plaintiff Willie Washington commenced this action on December
17, 2002. On January 27, 2003, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G.
Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on February 5, 2003.
On November 12, 2003, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted as to: (1) all of plaintiff's claims against defendant
Archer Daniels Midland C orp. ("ADM"); (2) plain tiff's 1998
denial of training claims; and (3) plaintiff's Title VII
retaliation claims against defendant ADM Milling Co. ("ADM
MIlling"). He also recom mended that defend ant ADM Milling's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's remaining retaliation claims brought under the New York Human
Rights Law be denied.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on
November 26, 2003. Oral argument on the objections was held on
April 26, 2004.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de
novo determination of those portions of the Repo rt and
Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de
novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after
reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from the parties,
the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recom
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge
Foschio's Report and Recom mendation, defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted as to: (1) all of plaintiff's claims against
defendant ADM; (2) plaintiff's 1998 denial of training claims;
and (3) plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claims again st
defendant ADM Milling. The motion to dismiss is denied in all
The case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Foschio
for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.