Opinion
C-1-09-427.
July 1, 2010
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 13), plaintiffs' objections (doc. no. 17) and defendant's reply (doc. no. 22). The Magistrate Judge concluded that this Court lacks jurisdiction and that plaintiff failed to provide any direct or inferential allegations sufficient to support the material elements necessary to sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 9) be granted.
Plaintiff objects to the Judge's Report and Recommendation on the grounds that his findings are contrary to law.
Defendant argues that plaintiff's objections do not contest or counter any of the reasons underlying the Report and Recommendation, and that, even if treating plaintiff's objections as an Amended Complaint, plaintiff still fails to allege the facts necessary to state a claim for relief.
CONCLUSION
Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that plaintiff's objections have either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 13). Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 9) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED AND TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit