United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
September 30, 2005.
LESLIE PAUL HOWARTH, Plaintiff,
CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant. LESLIE PAUL HOWARTH, Plaintiff, v. CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: GARY LANCASTER, District Judge
These matters were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto
for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and subsections 3 and 4 of Local Rule 72.1 for
Magistrate Judges. The complaints in these two matters, as well
as the complaints in three other matters, C.A. No. 05-28J, C.A.
No. 05-97J, and C.A. No. 05-98J, allege claims by plaintiff under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq., against defendant, his former employer.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in C.A. No.
05-02J, docket no. 3. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation on July 15, 2005, at C.A. No. 05-02J, docket no.
16, recommending that the Title III ADA claim be dismissed but
that the Title I ADA claim proceed.
The parties were notified that pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had ten days to serve and file written objections
to the Report and Recommendation or to amend the complaint.
Defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on
July 29, 2005, docket no. 18, arguing that the plaintiff had
intended to assert his Title I claim at C.A. No. 05-147J. The Magistrate Judge held a status conference on August 12,
2005. It was agreed by plaintiff, appearing pro se, and
defendant, appearing by counsel, that the Title I action would be
maintained at C.A. No. 05-147J, and, since no objection had been
made to the recommended dismissal of the Title III claim at C.A.
No. 05-02J, that the action at C.A. No. 05-02J should be
dismissed. It was understood and agreed that for purposes of any
defense based on exhaustion of administrative remedies or on a
statute of limitations, the Title I complaint at C.A. No. 05-147J
would be deemed to have been filed on the date the complaint was
filed at C.A. No. 05-02J.
After review of the record of this matter together with the
Report and Recommendation the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2005, it is
ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed in C.A. No. 05-02J.
Plaintiff's Title I ADA claim shall proceed at 05-147J, but the
filing date shall relate back to date of filing the complaint in
C.A. No. 05-02J, as stated above. The Clerk shall mark C.A. No.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.