HOWARD v. GC PARTNERS, INCORPORATED

HOWARD v. GC PARTNERS, INCORPORATED

Plaintiff:	BELINDA HOWARD
Defendant:	GC PARTNERS, INCORPORATED
Case Number:	1:2010cv00548
Filed:	July 19, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Guilford
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2003
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
August 11, 2011	Filing 31 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 08/11/2011. On May 31, 2011, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed, notice was served on the Plaintiff, and a copy was given t o the Court. Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, the Defendant objected to the Recommendation in part. The Plaintiff did not object. The Court has reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was mad e and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, as supplemented herein. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismis s Plaintiff's claim is Granted in Part and Denied in Part, specifically, Plaintiffs claim alleging Title VII racediscrimination based on disparate treatment is DISMISSED and the Motion is GRANTED. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to allo w Plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies as to this claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by August 19, 2011, counse l for the Defendant shall file a notice with the Court stating whether counsel will accept service of process on behalf of the Defendant (which, in the interest of efficiency, the Court then will carry out for Plaintiff via the CM/ECF system) or whether Plaintiff must make further service on the Defendant directly. Re 9 Motion to Dismiss; 21 Report and Recommendations. (Taylor, Abby)
May 31, 2011	Filing 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION - MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE WALLACE W. DIXON on 05/31/2011. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim alleging Titl e VII race discrimination based on disparate treatment (docket no. 9 ). The dismissal shall be without prejudice to Plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies as to this claim. It is further recommended that the court deny Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. Thus, Defendant's motion to dismiss should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.(Taylor, Abby)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 11, 2011

Filing 31 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 08/11/2011. On May 31, 2011, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed, notice was served on the Plaintiff, and a copy was given t o the Court. Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, the Defendant objected to the Recommendation in part. The Plaintiff did not object. The Court has reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was mad e and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, as supplemented herein. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismis s Plaintiff's claim is Granted in Part and Denied in Part, specifically, Plaintiffs claim alleging Title VII racediscrimination based on disparate treatment is DISMISSED and the Motion is GRANTED. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to allo w Plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies as to this claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by August 19, 2011, counse l for the Defendant shall file a notice with the Court stating whether counsel will accept service of process on behalf of the Defendant (which, in the interest of efficiency, the Court then will carry out for Plaintiff via the CM/ECF system) or whether Plaintiff must make further service on the Defendant directly. Re 9 Motion to Dismiss; 21 Report and Recommendations. (Taylor, Abby)

May 31, 2011

Filing 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION - MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE WALLACE W. DIXON on 05/31/2011. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim alleging Titl e VII race discrimination based on disparate treatment (docket no. 9 ). The dismissal shall be without prejudice to Plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies as to this claim. It is further recommended that the court deny Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. Thus, Defendant's motion to dismiss should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.(Taylor, Abby)

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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: HOWARD v. GC PARTNERS, INCORPORATED
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: BELINDA HOWARD
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: GC PARTNERS, INCORPORATED
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?