Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hinton v. General Motors Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 6, 2019

ROBERT HINTON, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER (1) ACCEPTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED APRIL 22, 2019 (DKT. 17), (2) SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (DKT. 20), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 9)

          MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Robert Hinton, proceeding pro se, filed this Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action against Defendant General Motors Corporation (“GM”). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for all pretrial proceedings. See Order of Referral (Dkt. 4). GM filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (Dkt. 9). On April 22, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. 17) recommending granting GM's motion. Hinton filed timely objections (Dkt. 20), and GM filed responses to the objections (Dkt. 21). For the reasons that follow, the Court accepts the magistrate judge's R&R in part and dismisses this case with prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The factual and procedural background has been adequately set forth by the magistrate judge and need not be repeated here in full. In brief summary, Hinton worked for GM from September 12, 1977 to April 1, 2005. He filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sometime in 2018. See Compl. at PageID.8 (Dkt. 1). The EEOC sent him a dismissal of his charges and a right-to-sue (“RTS”) letter on July 5, 2018. Id. Thereafter, Hinton filed the current complaint on October 9, 2018-more than thirteen years after he last worked for GM. Hinton's eight-paragraph complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) “Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);” and (2) “OSHA implemented guidelines that I penned to protect injured and disabled persons (ADA).” Id. at PageID.1-2.

         Hinton alleges that he is a person with a disability within the meaning of the ADA and that “through the practice of concealment GM VIOLATED the Title [VII] of the Americans with DISABILITES ACT (SEE EXHIBIT 2).” Compl. ¶ 3. Exhibit 2 is the RTS letter and provides no details about Hinton's claims. Under his first count, Hinton alleges the following:

GM and its staff fostered an environment that caused [Hinton] to become disable[d].
GM and O[SH]A fail[ed] to adhere to ADA and U.S. Supreme Court rulings base[d] upon mental/physical health in the workplace.
Violated Plaintiff['s] protected rights under healthcare and ADA of Title VII of the American[s] with Disabilities Act.

Id. ¶¶ 5-7. Under his second count, Hinton alleges the following:

Yes, O[SH]A has implemented the new safety procedures and protocol that I wrote to bring about new changes in reporting injuries. They didn't think I would find out about it, and took [i]t without asking me, nor without consent. After I was disable[d, ] I have been fighting not only for my livelihood, but for all working parents cause, the States' and big business was committing insurance fraud and making false statements by denying innocent persons their rightful claim, and causing financial hardship on these individuals because they were not reporting to O[SH]A as the law so clearly states.

Id. ¶ 8.

         II. STANDARD OF DECISION

         The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 166 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Only those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.”). Any issues raised for the first time in objections to an R&R are deemed waived. Uduko v. Cozzens, 975 F.Supp.2d 750, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000) (“[I]ssues raised for the first time in objections to magistrate judge's report and recommendation are deemed waived.”).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.