United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Carlson Magistrate Judge
D. MARIANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
INTRODUCTION and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Regina Grove filed this action under Title VII against
Defendants Aramark Corporation, Jim Castaldi, Elaine Evans,
Precious Gillard, and Jan Krushinski alleging employment
discrimination and retaliation. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Defendants
Aramark Campus, LLC ("Aramark"), and Aramark
employees Evans, Gillard, and Krushinski filed Aramark
Defendant's [sic] Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to
Dismiss") (Doc. 14) seeking dismissal of all claims
against them. Aramark Defendants attached numerous
exhibits to their Motion to Dismiss and supporting brief.
(See Docs. 14-2 through 14-26, 15-1 through 15-25.)
motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Carlson who
determined that the Motion to Dismiss should be converted to
a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 30.) In accordance with
the Third Circuit's directive in Renchenski v.
Williams, 622 F.3d 315, 339 (3d Cir. 2010), he advised
the parties of his intention to consider matters outside the
pleadings and provided them notice and an opportunity to be
heard with his July 22, 2019, Order. (Doc. 30 at 1-2.)
Magistrate Judge Carlson allowed the parties the option to
"file supplemental briefs addressing this case through
the perspective of a summary judgment motion, or in the
alternative file objections to the conversion of this motion
to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment."
(Id. at 2.) He directed that "plaintiff may
file any objections or a supplemental brief addressing the
motion as a motion for summary judgment on or before August
12, 2019, and the defendant may file a supplemental response
on or before August 26, 2019." (Id.) Plaintiff
did not file either by the deadline set in the Order or
since. Aramark Defendants filed a timely supplemental brief.
Judge Carlson issued his R&R on September 12, 2019. (Doc.
32.) He recommends that Aramark Defendants' motion (Doc.
14), which was converted to a motion for summary judgment, be
granted. (Doc. 32 at 26.) Plaintiff did not file objections
to the recommended disposition and the time for doing so has
STANDARD OF REVIEW
District Court may "designate a magistrate judge to
conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to
submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition" of certain matters
pending before the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). If a
party timely and properly files a written objection to a
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the
District Court "shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made." Id. at § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3;
Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).
"If a party does not object timely to a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, the party may lose its
right to de novo review by the district court."
EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d
Cir. 2017). However, "because a district court must take
some action for a report and recommendation to become a final
order and because the authority and the responsibility to
make an informed, final determination remains with the judge,
even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a
district court should afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report."
Id. at 100 (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
described the appropriate level of review as
"'reasoned consideration.'" Id.
(quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d
"reasoned consideration" review of the R&R, the
Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Carlson should not have
converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary
judgment and, having done so, he did not apply the
appropriate standard in reaching his conclusion that Aramark
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
outset of his discussion, Magistrate Judge Carlson stated the
Relying upon a body of what are now undisputed facts that
Grove has not chosen to challenge, the defendants contend
that Grove's claims fail on their merits because she has
not sufficiently alleged or shown any facts that support a
claim of racial discrimination or retaliation and the
uncontested facts defat [sic] her claims as a matter of
law.... We agree... and we will recommend that the
defendants' motion be granted.
32 at 2.) The Court finds this approach to addressing what
was originally a motion to dismiss insufficient to permit a