United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
ANNISA F. COVINGTON PLAINTIFF
LORD CORPORATION DEFENDANT
F. Covington, pro se
OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Objections (DN
35) to the Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (DN 30). For the reasons stated
below, Defendant's Objections are OVERRULED, and the
Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Annisa F. Covington (“Covington”) is a former
employee of Defendant LORD Corporation (“LORD”).
(Notice Removal Ex. 1, at 3, DN 1-1). The Complaint states
that it is a “[c]omplaint for discrimination, under the
laws of the EEOC.” (Notice Removal Ex. 1, at 2).
Coupled with her Amended Complaint (DN 7), it appears at a
minimum that Covington has asserted allegations of racial
Covington filed this action pro se in Warren Circuit
Court, LORD removed the matter to this Court. (Notice
Removal, DN 1). During the course of litigation, the
Magistrate Judge conducted a settlement conference between
the parties on December 7, 2016. (R. & R. 2, DN 30). The
parties left the settlement conference with an offer under
consideration by Covington. (R. & R. 2). After Covington
accepted the proposal, LORD sent her a release, to which
Covington expressed some concerns about its terms. (R. &
R. 2). On December 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge conducted a
telephonic conference to discuss the status of the
settlement, and LORD offered to modify the terms of the
settlement for tax purposes. (R. & R. 2). After the case
continued to remain on the active docket, the Magistrate
Judge conducted a supplemental settlement conference during
which Covington indicated that she had decided to pursue her
claims in litigation and was rejecting the settlement
proposal. (R. & R. 2).
then moved to enforce the settlement between the parties.
(Def.'s Mot. Enforce Settlement, DN 22). After the Court
referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that the motion be denied. (R. & R. 5).
LORD has objected to the R&R. (Def.'s Objs., DN 35).
Court has subject-matter jurisdiction of this matter based
upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636, which was enacted by Congress to relieve
the burden of Article III courts by permitting assignment of
certain duties to magistrate judges. See Gomez v. United
States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989). Section 636(b)
identifies the powers that may be assigned to magistrates by
the district court. Section 636(b) also establishes the
applicable standard of review for objections to the ruling of
a Magistrate Judge on such assigned matters. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The Sixth Circuit has explained:
[Section] 636(b) creates two different standards of review
for district courts when a magistrate court's finding is
challenged in district court. A district court shall apply a
clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of review for
the nondispositive, preliminary measures of §
636(b)(1)(A). Conversely, dispositive motions accepted from
§ 636(b)(1)(A), such as motions for summary judgment or
for the suppression of evidence, are governed by the de novo
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir.
2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (internal citations
omitted) (citation omitted).