UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE ALLEN,

Plaintiff, 

v.

VETBUILT SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant.

_________________________________/

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-12340

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Andre Allen filed this employment civil rights action against Defendant

Vetbuilt Services, Inc. on June 30, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the Court referred this

action to Magistrate judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial proceedings, including a

report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

626(b)(1)(B). 

In December 2015, Defendant Vetbuilt Services, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment. On August 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R), recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be granted with regard to Plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and Michigan’s ElliottLarsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §37.2101, et seq. and denied as

to Platiniff’s sexual harassment claims under Title VII and ELCRA. (Doc. No. 47). For

the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 41) and

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff, Andre Allen, filed suit against his former employer, alleging claims of

sexual harassment and retaliation pursuant to Title VII and ELCRA. The parties have

not objected to the R&R’s summary of the facts. Therefore, the Court adopts that

portion of the R&R. (See Doc. 47, pp. 2-6).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district judge “shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

which objection is made.” See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674

(1980); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3) (stating that a “district judge must determine de novo

any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions”); E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(2). In conducting a de novo review, the Court should look to the relevant

pleadings and evidence put forth in motions; a failure to file objections, or a failure to file

specific objections, constitutes waiver. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985);

United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

III. ANALYSIS

After reviewing all of the relevant filings, the Magistrate Judge recommended that

Plaintiff’s sexual harassment/hostile work environment claims proceed. According to

the Magistrate Judge, not only did Allen find his work environment to be “severely

hostile,” a “reasonable jury could perceive his work environment as hostile.” (Doc. No.

2
47, pp. 10-11). In sum, the evidence in the record, although contested, showed the

existence of a question of fact as to whether Defendant knew about or should have

known about the sexual harassment, and whether a hostile work environment existed. 

As for the retaliation claims, however, the Magistrate Judge found that Allen had

failed to create a prima facie case because the evidence did not support a finding that

he had engaged in protected activity or a causal connection between the activity and

the adverse employment action. (Doc. No. 47, pp. 14-15). 

The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that they had fourteen days from

service to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and that a party’s failure

to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No. 47, p. 16). Because

no objection has been filed in this case, the parties have waived their right to review and

appeal. Moreover, the Court finds the analysis thoroughly recounted the facts and

properly applied the governing law in reaching the recommendations set forth in the

R&R. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS in part

and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 28, 2017 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to

their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on September 28, 2017.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

4