IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 29, 2010
DOUGLAS BAKER, PLAINTIFF
PPL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26), recommending that the motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss and/or strike the complaint in part be granted, and recommending that plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") be dismissed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the complaint in the above-captioned matter alleges that defendant's actions constituted unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 951 et seq., and that plaintiff sought, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, and it further appearing that plaintiff concurs with defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike plaintiff's demand for punitive damages under the PHRA, and that the magistrate judge's report recommends that the court find, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that compensatory and punitive damages are not available under the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA, and the court noting that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,*fn1 and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn2 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26) is ADOPTED.
2. The motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss and/or strike, in part, the complaint is GRANTED.
3. The demand for punitive damages which plaintiff brought pursuant to the PHRA is STRICKEN from the complaint. Plaintiff shall henceforth be precluded from seeking punitive damages pursuant to the PHRA.
4. The demands for compensatory and punitive damages which plaintiff brought pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA are STRICKEN from the complaint. Plaintiff shall henceforth be precluded from seeking compensatory or punitive damages pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA.
5. The case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge