Summary
holding that warning notices and a poor performance review were not sufficiently adverse to satisfy even the less demanding standard applicable to retaliation claims
Summary of this case from Griffin v. Am. Credit Acceptance LLC.Opinion
CA NO: 3:07-3601.
September 16, 2009
ORDER
This is an employment discrimination case filed by the plaintiff Ojetta Rease against the defendant Zax, Inc. The plaintiff alleges claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1981). The defendants deny the plaintiff's allegations and have moved for summary judgment. The matter is now before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
As to his findings on dispositive matters, the Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which specific objection is made.
Here, plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless, this Court has made a de novo review of the record before it and has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge should be and is hereby approved. The defendants motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.