Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
John L. Edwards v. Elmhurst Hospital Center
March 6, 2013
JOHN L. EDWARDS, PLAINTIFF,
ELMHURST HOSPITAL CENTER, DEFENDANT. JOHN L. EDWARDS, PLAINTIFF,
ELMHURST HOSPITAL CENTER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff John L. Edwards brought these pro se actions*fn1
against defendant Elmhurst Hospital Center on October 27,
2011, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e, et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 621, et seq. ("ADEA"); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. ("ADA"). Plaintiff claims that
defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race, color,
age, and disability by failing to promote him and failing to
accommodate his disability; and retaliated against him by refusing to
compensate him for work he performed. Defendant moved to dismiss the
complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on May 21, 2012. (Doc.
No. 12.) By Order entered May 24, 2012, this Court referred
defendant's motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the Honorable
Lois Bloom, for a Report and Recommendation. On February 4, 2013,
Judge Bloom issued a Report and
Recommendation (the "R&R") recommending that defendant's motion be
granted. On February 20, 2013, plaintiff filed timely objections to
the R&R. On February 27, 2013, defendant filed a reply in support of
the R&R. (Doc. No. 24.)
Plaintiff does not object to specific portions of the R&R, but instead objects generally that he provided sufficient facts to survive the motion to dismiss, and restates the circumstances surrounding his alleged discrimination. (Pl.'s Objection (Doc. No. 23 in No. 11-cv-5349).) Out of an abundance of caution given plaintiff's pro se status, and reading his objections in the strongest light possible for plaintiff, the Court has reviewed Judge Bloom's thorough and well-reasoned R&R, the factual and procedural record upon which is based, and plaintiff's objections. See Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (a court is required to conduct a de novo review of the contested sections of an R&R). Having done so, the Court concurs with the R&R, and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaints in case numbers 11-cv-5348 and 11-cv-5349 with prejudice, enter judgment accordingly, and close those cases. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order, and the accompanying Judgment, to plaintiff.
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF United States ...
Buy This Entire Record For