Opinion
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00290-REB-CBS
01-23-2015
VALERIE ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DENVER, COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [#65] filed November, 10 2014; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#91] filed November 12, 2014; and (3) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#114] filed December 19, 2014. The plaintiff filed objections [#119] to the recommendation, and the defendant filed a response [#127] to the objections. I overrule the objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
"[#65]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which the parties object. I have considered carefully the recommendation, the objections, the response to the objections, and the applicable case law. Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed her pleadings and other filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton , 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
As detailed in the recommendation [#119], the plaintiff, Valerie Arnold, asserts claims of sex discrimination in employment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17. Correctly, the magistrate judge concludes that the evidence in the record shows there are disputed issues of material fact related to both the sex discrimination claim and the retaliation claim. Given those issues, the magistrate judge recommends, of course, that the two motions for summary judgment be denied. Nothing in the objections filed by Ms. Arnold undermines the rationale and conclusions of the magistrate judge. The recommendation is detailed, well reasoned, and correct. Therefore, I approve and adopt the recommendation and overrule the objections.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#114] filed December 19, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections [#119] of the plaintiff are OVERRULED;
3. That the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [#65] filed November, 10 2014, is DENIED; and
4. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#91] filed November 12, 2014, is DENIED.
Dated January 23, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge