Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Greene v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 13, 2013

BETTY F. BROWN GREENE, Plaintiff,
v.
BRENTWOOD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants

Page 132

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 133

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 134

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 135

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 136

For Betty F. Brown Greene, Plaintiff: Harriet A. Gilliam, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office of Harriet A. Gilliam, Riverhead, NY.

For Brentwood Union Free School District, Board of Education, Brentwood Union Free School, George Talley, Individually and as President Board of Education, Brentwood UFSD, Lorraine Pace, Individually and as Trustee, Board of Education, Brentwood UFSD, Stephen Coleman, Individually and as Trustee Board of Education, Brentwood UFSD, Roland Jimenez, Individually and as Trustee, Board of Education, Brentwood UFSD, Donna Jones, Individually and in her capacity as Superintendent of Schools Brentwood Union Free School District, Dr. Joan Lange, Individually and in her capacity as Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Brentwood Union Free School District, Defendants: Lewis R. Silverman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Caroline Beth Lineen, Rutherford & Christie LLP, New York, NY.

OPINION

Page 137

ORDER

Sandra J. Feuerstein, United States District Judge.

On September 8, 2011, plaintiff Betty F. Brown Greene (" plaintiff" ) commenced this action against the Brentwood Union Free School District (the " District" ), the Board of Education of the District (the " Board" ), Board members George Talley, Lorraine Pace, Stephen Coleman, and

Page 138

Ronald Jimenez, Superintendent Donna Jones, and Assistant Superintendent Joan Lange (collectively, " defendants" ), alleging that defendants discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e, et seq. (" Title VII" ) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docket Entry No. 1]. On December 19, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Docket Entry No. 49]. Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, dated April 9, 2013, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted on the grounds that: (1) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because the evidence offered does not demonstrate that she (a) suffered an adverse employment action or (b) was qualified for the position to which she was denied promotion; and (2) even if a prima facie case were established, she has failed to rebut the non-discriminatory reasons for her treatment offered by defendants. [Docket Entry No. 69] (the " Report" ). Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report. [Docket Entry No. 70] (" Objections" ). For the following reasons, plaintiff's objections are overruled, and the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Report in its entirety.

I. Standard of Review

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a magistrate judge to conduct proceedings of dispositive pretrial matters without the consent of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters to which a timely objection has been made is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). However, " when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court will review the report strictly for clear error." Frankel v. City of N.Y., Nos. 06 Civ. 5450, 07 Civ. 3436, 2009 WL 465645, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2009). The Court is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter to which no timely objection has been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F.Supp.2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 305 Fed App'x 815 (2d Cir. Jan. 9, 2009); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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