United States District Court, D. Colorado
July 6, 2015
SEVGT COOK, Plaintiff,
HONORABLE JOHN M. McHUGH, Secretary of the Army, Defendant.
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
This case is before me on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Summary Judgment (Doc 18) be granted and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff has filed specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. The Defendant has filed his response to those objections. And the Plaintiff has filed her reply to the Defendant’s response.
I therefore review the Recommendation de novo in light of the file and record in this case. On de novo review, I conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive analysis for his recommendation is correct and should be adopted and approved.
Specifically in support of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, she has alleged that she was moved from the front desk of the Larson Clinic to the x-ray room, her clinical privileges were permanently suspended, and the manager of the Larson Clinic at Fort Carson engaged in aggressive, hostile bullying and intimidating conduct. I agree with the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust these “claims” and, accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.
The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment upon the underlying assertion that the Plaintiff was moved from the Larson Clinic to the Soldier Readiness Processing Center resulting in a loss of her alternate work schedule. Specifically, I agree with the Magistrate Judge that there is no genuine issue of material fact that such move constitutes adverse employment action and even if it were, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the required element of causation to establish her retaliation claim. And, finally, I agree with the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiff, under summary judgment analysis, has failed to establish that the Defendant’s articulated reasons for the transfer were pretextual for discrimination.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Summary Judgment (Doc 18) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.