Hurchanik v. Butler County Commissioners, No. 1:2010cv00042 - Document 18 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 16 Report and Recommendation, granting 8 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's state law claims, and terminates this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 2/23/2011. (km1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hurchanik v. Butler County Commissioners Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION RICHARD L. HURCHANIK, Plaintiff, v. BUTLER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : NO. 1:10-CV-00042 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 16), in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted and to which no objections were filed. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, GRANTS Defendants’ motion (doc. 8) and DISMISSES this matter from the Court’s docket. Plaintiff, an attorney who served as a court-appointed public defender in Butler County since approximately 1987, brought this pro se action alleging that he was removed from the public defender list in 2008 as a result of age, sex and race discrimination as well as in retaliation “for exercising his rights to be employed as an elderly person” (doc. 1). He brings his claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20003 et seq., as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the corresponding Ohio laws (Id.). He alleges that Defendants Dockets.Justia.com reduced the number of white, male attorneys while “retaining almost all or all the black and other minority attorneys” and “predominantly terminated...older male attorneys while keeping a discriminating number of younger female attorneys” (Id.). Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Plaintiff failed to include his claims for sex and race discrimination and his claim for retaliatory discharge in his EEOC complaint (doc. 8). In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because he failed to establish that he enjoyed an employment relationship with Defendants and that, instead, Plaintiff was an independent contractor (Id.). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion be granted because Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants were his employer protections for afforded purposes employees of by availing the himself federal of the employment discrimination statutes and because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisite of exhausting his administrative remedies with respect to his claims of race and sex discrimination and retaliation (doc. 16). Having concluded that Plaintiff’s federal claims should be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s state-law claims also be dismissed (Id.). Proper notice was provided to the parties under Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), including the notice that they would waive further appeal if they failed -2- to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Petitioner filed no objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Court finds no clear error in the record. See Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150(1985)(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). contrary, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s other On the Report and Recommendation well-reasoned, thorough, and correct. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 16), GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 8), DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s state law claims, and terminates this matter from the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2011 /s/ S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge -3-
]]>
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.
