The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS
Plaintiff Karen Turlip ("Plaintiff" or "Turlip") filed this sex discrimination and harassment suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., on June 14, 2005 against Defendants North Pocono School District ("North Pocono"), Matthew Farrell ("Farrell") and Dr. Louis DeFazio ("DeFazio"). Thereafter, on September 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding two counts to her original pleading under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 951, et seq. (Rec. Doc. 11).
On February 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Blewitt entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Defendants' North Pocono School District and Matthew Farrell's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 12) be denied as to all claims, but granted with respect to Plaintiff's relief request for punitive damages against Defendant North Pocono. Magistrate Judge Blewitt also recommends that the Defendants' alternative motion for more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) be denied. Further, Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommends that the case be remanded to him, so that the moving Defendants, North Pocono and Farrell, can be directed to respond to Plaintiff's amended complaint, and to conduct a scheduling conference to set case management deadlines.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report were due on February 25, 2006 and to date none have been filed. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed as Human Resources Supervisor by the Defendant School District during all relevant times, from December 18, 2002 through the present. Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to sexual discrimination and harassment by her male supervisor, Superintendent DeFazio, while she was employed by the North Pocono from December 18, 2002 through the present.*fn1
Plaintiff claims that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and that North Pocono did not remedy the situation, but in fact retaliated against her for complaining about the sexual harassment. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered economic losses, loss of future earning power, as well as emotional distress due to the alleged sexual harassment.
When no objections are made to a magistrate's report, the district court is not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge's report before accepting it. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). According to the Third Circuit, however, "the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge's report, the report becomes the judgment of the court. Id.
Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Blewitt's determinations and well-reasoned analysis, and while we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them, we do reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge's report.
First, after a detailed and complete analysis that we will not reiterate here Magistrate Judge Blewitt finds the Plaintiff's Title VII and PHRA claims are not time-barred because Plaintiff filed her federal administrative harassment charges within the appropriate time frame after the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be denied ...