Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00280/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00280-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ann Kent, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Tucson, a municipal corporation 

of the State of Arizona

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-280-TUC-FRZ (JJM)

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for

Summary Judgment and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge. This action, based on gender discrimination in the workplace, was referred to

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1

and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following review of the Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s response in opposition , and

Defendant’s reply, Magistrate Judge Marshall issued her Report and Recommendation on

September 26, 2011, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, grant Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The Report and Recommendation provides a thorough discussion of the facts, legal

standards and in-depth analysis of the issues presented.

Case 4:09-cv-00280-FRZ-JR Document 69 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Report and Recommendation advised “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a)

and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations were timely filed on

October 17, 2011, requesting the Court review this matter de novo and decline to adopt the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, arguing that there is sufficient evidence from

which a reasonable jury might conclude that Plaintiff was indeed the victim of gender-based

discrimination.

Defendant filed a response thereto, requesting the Court adopt the Report and

Recommendation and grant the motion for summary judgment.

The Court finds, after de novo review of the matters presented, including the Report

and Recommendation, Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Plaintiff’s response in opposition, and Defendant’s reply, in addition to Plaintiff’s objections

to the Report and Recommendation and Defendant’s response thereto, that the findings of

the Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law by this Court.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 64) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of

law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Tucson’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED and this action is hereby dismissed; Judgment shall be

entered accordingly. 

DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.

Case 4:09-cv-00280-FRZ-JR Document 69 Filed 03/29/12 Page 2 of 2