Opinion
CV 110-123.
June 20, 2011
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R R"), to which objections have been filed. Accordingly, the R R of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims based on events occurring prior to January 23, 2009-including his claims for sexual harassment and hostile work environment-Plaintiff's claims for retaliation based on his allegations that he was harassed by several supervisors, had a portion of his pay withheld, had a request for leave denied, was denied a promotion, and experienced a delay in medical care for an on-the-job injury, and the Augusta Youth Development Campus are DISMISSED.
In the Magistrate Judge's R R, he recommended that Plaintiff's claims in connection with his January 23, 2009, and June 22, 2010 right to sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") be dismissed as either time-barred or unexhausted. (Doc. no. 13.) Plaintiff objects, arguing that when he filed his original complaint with the Court (doc. no. 1), he had not yet received from the EEOC, a "right to sue letter from a year or two prior before the complaint [was filed] with the [C]ourt." (Doc. no. 16, p. 2.) A review of Plaintiff's original complaint shows that he filed with it the right to sue letters from January 23, 2009, and June 22, 2010 (id. at pp. 19-20), thus, in his objection, Plaintiff is referring to the right to sue letter that he received on December 1, 2010. (See doc. no. 12, p. 12.) However, as the Magistrate Judge correctly observed, those claims based on the January 23rd and June 22nd right to sue letters are barred as either unexhausted or untimely, whereas Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with his claim of retaliation based on the December 1st letter. (See generally doc. nos. 13, 15.) Therefore, Plaintiff's objection regarding the time it took for the EEOC to send him the December 1st right to sue letter is OVERRULED. Plaintiff's remaining objections are likewise without merit and are also OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.