IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA BAIR, : Case No. 4:13-CV-2866

 :

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

: (Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson)

CITIZENS BANK OF :

PENNSYLVANIA :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

November 2, 2015

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the

September 21, 2015 Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge

Martin C. Carlson (ECF No. 33) regarding Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (ECF No. 23). After Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson issued his Report

and Recommendation, the Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation ( ECF No. 34) and a Memorandum of Law in

Support of Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendations (ECF No. 35). In response, Defendant filed Defendant’s

Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Carlson’s September 21,

2015 Report and Recommendation (ECF 38).

Case 4:13-cv-02866-MWB Document 39 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 4
When objections are filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate

judge, the district court makes “a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objections are

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674-75;

100 S.Ct. 2406; 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980). The court may accept, reject or modify,

in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. Id.

Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits

whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to

place on a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Raddatz,

447 U.S. at 675; see also Mathews v Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v.

Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). 

Here, Plaintiff made three objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s

Report and Recommendations. First, Plaintiff argued that Chief Magistrate Judge

Carlson applied the wrong legal standard in concluding that Plaintiff failed to

satisfy her burden of requesting a reasonable accommodation under the Americans

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117. Plaintiff,

however, cited the standard used by Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson as the correct

standard. Therefore, Plaintiff did not object to the standard applied and instead

objected to Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s finding that Plaintiff failed to request

reasonable accommodations at all. Plaintiff’s second and third objections, like her

Case 4:13-cv-02866-MWB Document 39 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 4
first objection, challenge Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s examination of the

evidence and simply argue that his findings were incorrect. 

This Court has considered the Plaintiff’s Objections with appropriate

scrutiny and has reviewed the record de novo. Because this Court agrees with

Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s findings and recommendations, the Court will

not rehash the reasoning of the Chief Magistrate Judge and will instead adopt the

report and recommendation in its entirety.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation is

ADOPTED in full. September 21, 2015 ECF No. 33.

2. Defendant Citizen’s Bank of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety. November 26, 2014 ECF No.

23.

3. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Defendant

and against Plaintiff and to close the case file. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-02866-MWB Document 39 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:13-cv-02866-MWB Document 39 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 4