United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
DIANE K. VESCOVO CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 9, 2014, the plaintiff, Denise LaFay Patterson (" Patterson"), filed a pro se complaint against the defendant, Federal Express - Tech Operational Training (" FedEx"), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (" Title VII"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Accompanying the complaint was a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Mot., ECF No. 2), which the court granted on December 9, 2014, (Order, ECF No. 5). This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin. Order 2013-05, Apr. 29, 2013.) For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Patterson's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Patterson filed her complaint on a court-supplied form styled "Complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." In the complaint, Patterson alleges that FedEx discriminated against her on December 18, 2012, by failing to promote her. (Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 1.) She did not check any of the boxes for a protected class under Title VII. In describing the circumstances that gave rise to her allegation of discrimination, Patterson states the following:
I have permanently employed with Federal Express for eight years at the time of the issue. I was hired to work in the TOT department as a receptinish [sic]. My department management sent me to New Horizon to take many different training courses so that I could learn houw [sic] to use graphc software. The purpose of this training Instructor's [sic]. This training enabled me to prepare and edit training and instructional manuals that were normally the responsibility of Senior Developers. As a receptionist I was a grade level 4 and I was performing the work of a grade level 26 without any additional increase in salary or grade for six years. When the position was posted for a Sr. Developer in the department in December 2012, I applied for the position and I was told by my manager Simon Fill it appeared I didn't have the experience nor education for the job[.] Federal Express likes to be known for hiring and promoting within but for the position in question a white male from outside the company was hire [sic].
(Id. ¶ 10.)
The complaint states that Patterson filed charges against Federal Express with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC") on March 13, 2013, and that the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue which was received by her on December 9, 2014. (Id. ¶ ¶ 7, 9.) Attached to her complaint is the right-to-sue notice mailed by the EEOC on September 9, 2014. (Dismissal & Notice of Rights, ECF No. 1-1.)
Patterson seeks the following relief: " Defendant be directed to [pay] the salary of a grade 26 for the past six years that I performed the duties [and] TOT Management diversity and equal opportunity training." (Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1.)
II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening
Pursuant to Local Rule 4.1(a), service will not issue in a pro se case where the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis until the complaint has been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The clerk is authorized to issue summonses to pro se litigants only after that review is complete and an order of the court issues.
This report and recommendation will constitute the court's screening. The court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is ...