Magistrate Judge Patti's R & R in fact reflects thoughtful, fair, and careful consideration of Plaintiff's claims, the issues raised in Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff's response to the motion. The Court will respond, however, to Plaintiff's objections to certain words or phrases used by Magistrate Judge Patti, which Plaintiff asserts are reflective of his bias against her or of his unfair treatment of her claims.

As such, the Court finds it unnecessary to address them. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 ( 1985).Īs an initial matter, Plaintiff raises numerous complaints in her objections that do not address Magistrate Judge Patti's legal conclusion that her claims are time barred. Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review those issues. A party's failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the R & R waives any further right to appeal on those issues. The Court, however, 'is not required to articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party's objections.' Thomas v. 52.)ġ When objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R & R on a dispositive matter, the Court 'make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.' 28 U.S.C. Plaintiff filed objections on February 27, 2018. Magistrate Judge Patti concludes that the six-month limitations period is enforceable but must take into consideration the EEOC's period of exclusive jurisdiction.Īt the conclusion of his decision, Magistrate Judge Patti informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R & R within fourteen days. 51.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Patti finds that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the six-month statute of limitations set forth in a pre-employment 'Disclosure, Release, and Authorization' Plaintiff completed as part of her online job application. 40.) In a Report and Recommendation filed February 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Patti recommends that the Court grant the motion. On July 13, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P.

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff Barbrie Logan commenced this lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation by her former employer, Defendant MGM Grand Detroit Casino.

OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE' S FEBRUREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Mgm grand detroit casino age limit