From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wargats v. Pittsburgh Technical Institute

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 8, 2007
Civil Action No. 05-0318 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-0318.

January 8, 2007


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Plaintiff's Complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on March 9, 2005 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 43) filed on December 4, 2006, recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Pittsburgh Technical Institute (Doc. No. 31) be denied. Service was made on all counsel of record. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, that they had ten (10) days to file any objections. No objections have been filed. After review of the pleadings and the documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered: AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2007;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 31) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 43) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated December 4, 2006, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.


Summaries of

Wargats v. Pittsburgh Technical Institute

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 8, 2007
Civil Action No. 05-0318 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2007)
Case details for

Wargats v. Pittsburgh Technical Institute

Case Details

Full title:RANDOLPH M. WARGATS, Plaintiff, v. PITTSBURGH TECHNICAL INSTITUTE…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 8, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 05-0318 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2007)

Citing Cases

Zampogna v. Sheriff of Westmoreland Cnty.

The Court also agrees that age discrimination may be inferred from the averments that Plaintiff was asked by…

Rosnick v. Norbert, Inc.

(supervisor comments that plaintiff was “getting older . . . when are you going to retire?” did not rise to…