CLAIRE V. EAGAN, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #78) of the United States Magistrate Judge with respect to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Improper Party Defendants (Dkt. #30.1). Plaintiff filed timely objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ. p. 72(b). Accordingly, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the issues.
Magistrate Judge Sam A. Joyner recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. The magistrate judge specifically recommended that the following claims be dismissed:
1. Plaintiffs' wrongful discharge tort claim under. Oklahoma law;
2. Plaintiff's claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act;
3. Plaintiff's claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the extent it is asserted against the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") and the United States Postal Service("USPS"); and
4. Plaintiff's claim for review of the MSPB's final order to the extent it is asserted against the Postmaster General and MSPB.
If the Report and Recommendation is adopted, the only remaining claims would be (a) plaintiff's claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against the Postmaster General; and (b) plaintiff's claim for review of the MSPB's final order against USPS. Further, it would be proper to dismiss the MSPB as a party from the litigation, as there would be no claims left against MSPB.
None of plaintiff's "objections" challenges the magistrate judge's legal analysis or conclusions. Instead, they reflect nothing more than plaintiff's disagreement with the magistrate judge's recitation of plaintiff's allegations in the Amended Complaint. The magistrate judge's recitation of plaintiff's allegations provide the context in which plaintiff's cause of action arose and preface the legal analysis of defendants' motion Plaintiff's quibble with the magistrate judge's statement that plaintiff was injured when he tripped over a curb while he was at the Northeast station, for instance, while plaintiff now contends that he was at the Eastside station, is immaterial to the ultimate resolution of the issues raised by the motion to dismiss. Hence, plaintiff's objections provide no legitimate reason for the Court to "reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions," Fed.R.Civ. p. 72(b), and the Court finds no such reason based on its review. The legal analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation are sound.
Based upon a careful review of the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge and the objections of the plaintiff, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #78) should be ADOPTED. The objection of the plaintiff (Dkt. #91) is OVERRULED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Improper Party Defendants (Dkt. #30-1) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's wrongful discharge tort claim under Oklahoma law and plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act are dismissed. Plaintiff's claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is dismissed to the extent it is asserted against the MSPB and the USPS. Plaintiff's claim for review of the MSPB's final order is dismissed to the extent it is asserted against the Postmaster General and the MSPB. The MSPB is dismissed with prejudice as a party from the litigation. The only remaining claims are plaintiff's claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against the Postmaster General and plaintiff's claim for review of the MSPB's final order against the USPS.