United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
M. Borden, Judge
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this case was referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for consideration
and disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters as
may be appropriate. Doc. 3. On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff
Dawn Wrinn, proceeding pro se, brought this action
alleging age, disability, and gender discrimination during
her employment with Defendant City of Dothan. Doc. 1. Now
before the court is the City's motion for summary
judgment, filed on September 3, 2017. Doc. 35.
September 14, 2017, this court issued an Order giving Wrinn
until September 28, 2017 to file a response to the motion,
and to include evidentiary materials. Wrinn did not file a
timely response. On October 6, 2017, Wrinn filed a response
to the motion. This court issued an Order on October 6, 2017,
striking Wrinn's response as untimely, but giving her
until October 18, 2017 to file a motion for leave to file her
response. Doc. 41. Wrinn did not file a response to the
court's Order. In its Reply in support of its motion, the
City urges the court to grant summary judgment on that basis,
and on the grounds articulated in its initial brief.
consideration of the City's submissions and the
applicable law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 35) be GRANTED, and that all
claims be DISMISSED with prejudice.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims in this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(3). The parties do not contest personal
jurisdiction or venue, and the court finds adequate
allegations to support both.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Only disputes over facts that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A dispute of material fact is genuine only if
“the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
moving party “always bears the initial responsibility
of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,
and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate
the absence of a genuine [dispute] of material fact.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In responding to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
fact.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Indeed, the
non-movant must “go beyond the pleadings” and
submit admissible evidence demonstrating “specific
facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for
trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (internal
quotation marks omitted). If the evidence is “merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary
judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 249-50 (citations omitted).
district court considers a motion for summary judgment, it
“must view all the evidence and all factual inferences
reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, and must resolve all
reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the
non-movant.” Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga.,
520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). The court's role is not to
“weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. “If a
reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence could draw
more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference
introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the court
should not grant summary judgment.” Allen v. Bd. of
Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir.
2007) (citation omitted). Importantly, if the non-movant
“fails to adduce evidence which would be sufficient . .
. to support a jury finding for the non-movant, summary
judgment may be granted.” Brooks v. Blue Cross
& Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1370
(11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant,
are as follows:
Wrinn was hired by the City in September 1990. At the time of
her hire, Wrinn received a copy of the City's employment
policies from the Personnel Department. Under City policy,
there is disciplinary progression. When a disciplinary action
could result in dismissal, the department head conducts a
determination hearing and within three days of the hearing
renders a decision and serves notification of that decision.
Doc. 35-1 at 101.
received a notice of discipline from her employer in April
2008 and December 2008. Doc. 35-1 at 117-20. In September
2014, Wrinn received a formal counseling for an offense which
constituted her first offense in the minor offense category
that counted toward a determination hearing. Doc. 35-1 at
121-22. In March of 2015, she received a written warning
which was the second offense in the minor ...