Grant v. Bloomberg LP

Grant v. Bloomberg LP

Plaintiff:	Rodrick Grant
Defendant:	Bloomberg LP
Case Number:	1:2012cv06143
Filed:	August 8, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Paul A. Crotty
Presiding Judge:	Kevin Nathaniel Fox
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 8, 2013	Filing 19 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Bloomberg LP. As Judge Fox noted, the complaint fails to allege that Bloomberg's decision not to offer Grant employment was in any way connected to his race. The Court agrees with this determination and finds no clear error in the R&R. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Fox's May 2, 2013 R&R in full, Bloomberg's motion to dismiss this action is GRANTED, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 15(a), the Court finds that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 7/8/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rsh)
May 2, 2013	Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss. Although the plaintiff alleged that he is black and qualified for the position of consoleroom operator that was not offered to him by the defendant, he failed to allege that the defendants decisi on not to offer him the position was in any way connected to his race. The complaint is devoid of any factual content that would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for unlawful discrimination. Accordingly, d ismissing the complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is warranted. For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule l2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedu re, Docket Entry No.11, be granted. FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report t o file written objections. Objections to R&R due by 5/20/2013. Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review. Respectfully submitted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/2/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rsh)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 8, 2013

Filing 19 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Bloomberg LP. As Judge Fox noted, the complaint fails to allege that Bloomberg's decision not to offer Grant employment was in any way connected to his race. The Court agrees with this determination and finds no clear error in the R&R. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Fox's May 2, 2013 R&R in full, Bloomberg's motion to dismiss this action is GRANTED, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 15(a), the Court finds that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 7/8/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rsh)

May 2, 2013

Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss. Although the plaintiff alleged that he is black and qualified for the position of consoleroom operator that was not offered to him by the defendant, he failed to allege that the defendants decisi on not to offer him the position was in any way connected to his race. The complaint is devoid of any factual content that would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for unlawful discrimination. Accordingly, d ismissing the complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is warranted. For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule l2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedu re, Docket Entry No.11, be granted. FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report t o file written objections. Objections to R&R due by 5/20/2013. Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review. Respectfully submitted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/2/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rsh)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Grant v. Bloomberg LP
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rodrick Grant
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Bloomberg LP
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?