Trent v. Lafarge Corporation

Full title: FRANK TRENT, Plaintiff, v. LAFARGE CORPORATION, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Oct 20, 2005

Civil Action No. 04-cv-1763-WDM-OES (D. Colo. Oct. 20, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-cv-1763-WDM-OES.

October 20, 2005

ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WALKER MILLER, District Judge

This case is before me on the recommendation of Magistrate Judge O. Edward Schlatter, issued August 15, 2005, that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and this case be dismissed. Plaintiff Frank Trent has not objected to this recommendation and therefore is not entitled to de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

I have reviewed the pertinent portions of the record in this case, including the motion for summary judgment, Trent's response, and the recommendation.

In his response to the motion for summary judgment, Trent does not provide any evidence that his complaint was filed within ninety days of any notice of right to sue issued by the EEOC or the Colorado Civil Rights Division.¹ Further, his only response to the merits of the arguments raised by defendant is that it would be "extreme" for the court to grant summary judgment because he would be prohibited from having his day in court. As Magistrate Judge Schlatter concluded in the recommendation, Trent has failed to identify any factual dispute that would render summary judgment inappropriate.

1 The recommendation states that Trent did not attach any exhibits to his response to the motion for summary judgment. Trent did, however, attach a copy of a March 22, 2004 Notice of Rights.

Accordingly, it is ordered:

1. The recommendation of Magistrate Judge Schlatter, issued August 15, 2005, is accepted.

2. The motion for summary judgment, filed May 9, 2005, is granted.

3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.