SHIPMAN v. NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION (AMTRAK) et al, No. 1:2014cv00384 - Document 127 (D.D.C. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/17/2017. (lcckk1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SHIPMAN v. NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION (AMTRAK) et al Doc. 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA D’RAYFIELD KARY-KHAME SHIPMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-384 (CKK) NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK), Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 17, 2017) Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 72.2 and 72.3, this Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson for full case management up to but excluding trial, and a report and recommendation on any dispositive motion filed by any party. ECF No. 100. On January 31, 2017, Judge Robinson’s [122] Report and Recommendation was entered on Defendant’s [104] Motion for Summary Judgment, and the parties were allowed 14 days to file objections to the recommendations made by Judge Robinson. The parties were expressly instructed that the “objections shall specifically identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis of each objection.” ECF No. 122 at 13. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on February 13, 2017. ECF No. 123. Defendant opposed those objections, ECF No. 125, and Plaintiff has filed a reply, ECF No. 126. “Any party may file . . . written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations,” and must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.” LCvR 72.3(b). Upon the filing of objections, the “district judge [must] make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which objection is made,” and may do so “based solely on the record developed before the magistrate judge, or may conduct a new hearing, receive further evidence, and recall witnesses.” LCvR 72.3(c). The “district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, or may recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Plaintiff’s objections are not directed at any specific portion of the Report and Recommendation. Rather, Plaintiff relays his generalized concerns regarding racism and other injustices in the United States, and the federal court system more specifically. Although the Court in no way seeks to minimize those concerns, they are not pertinent as a legal matter to the resolution of Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant. Accordingly, upon careful consideration of the record in this case and of Magistrate Judge Robinson’s well-reasoned and thorough Report and 1 Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS and ACCEPTS the [122] Report and Recommendation in full, and therefore GRANTS Defendant’s [104] Motion for Summary Judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Dated: March 17, 2017 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
