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.

Crowe v. Leroy Cent. School Dist.

United States District Court, W.D. New York

June 7, 2013

PATRICK CROWE, Plaintiff,
v.
LEROY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant

Page 436

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 437

For Patrick Crowe, Plaintiff: Christina A. Agola, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brighton, NY; Ryan Charles Woodworth, Christina Agola PLLC, Brighton, NY.

For Leroy Central School District, Defendant: Cristina A. Bahr, Scott D. Piper, LEAD ATTORNEY, Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford, NY.

OPINION

Page 438

DECISION AND ORDER

HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

The instant employment discrimination case, involving claims that defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq .) was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for supervision of all pre-trial proceedings. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on September 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 29)

On March 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff's complaint dismissed. (Dkt. No. 36). Magistrate Judge McCarthy found, after construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie claim of age discrimination. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that plaintiff's reassignment from teaching 11th grade English to teaching 9th grade English did not constitute an adverse employment action, and that plaintiff could not show that the defendant's nondiscriminatory reason for the transfer served as a pretext for discrimination based on age.

On March 25, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 37). Defendant filed a response to plaintiff's objections on April 9, 2013 and plaintiff filed a reply on April 22, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 40 and 41) The Court determined that oral argument was unnecessary, and deemed the matter submitted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.[1] Upon de novo review, and after reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate Judge McCarthy's recommendation to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismiss plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Page 439

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

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.