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.

WASHINGTON v. ADM MILLING CO.

United States District Court, W.D. New York


April 28, 2004.

WILLIE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff,
v.
ADM MILLING CO. and ARCHE R DANIEL S MIDLAND CO RP., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD ARCARA, District Judge

ORDER

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 menda tion.

  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 other respects.

  The case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Foschio for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20040428

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



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.