United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTIAL SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
JOHN
T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
August 17, 2017, Plaintiff Lashondra Henderson, proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint against her former
employer, alleging race and color based discrimination and
retaliation claims, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et
seq. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The matter was
referred to the Chief Magistrate Judge for screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and L.R. 4.1(b)(2). On
August 30, 2017, the Chief Magistrate Judge issued an Order
Granting Motion for Leave to Appear In Forma
Pauperis and Report and Recommendation for Partial
Sua Sponte Dismissal of only the Title VII color
discrimination claim. The Chief Magistrate Judge recommended
that service of the complaint be made on Lincare in reference
to the surviving claims. (ECF No. 12.) The time allowed for
Plaintiff to file objections to the report and recommendation
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) has expired without
Plaintiff filing any objections.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Congress
passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the
burden on the federal courts by permitting the assignment of
certain district court duties to magistrates.” See
e.g. Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed. App'x. 308, 311,
2003 WL 21321184 (6th Cir. 2003) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A
United States District Judge may refer certain dispositive
pretrial motions to a United States Magistrate Judge for
submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C);
Brown v. Wesley Quaker Maid, Inc., 771 F.2d 952, 957
(6th Cir. 1985). The District Court Judge may accept, reject,
or modify in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
proposed findings and recommendations. While most actions by
a Magistrate Judge are reviewed for clear error, dispositive
recommendations to the District Court Judge are reviewed
de novo. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
141-42 (1985).
III.
FACTUAL HISTORY
The
Chief Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation offers
proposed findings of fact to which Plaintiff has not
objected. (ECF No. 7, pp. 2-5.) As such, the Court adopts the
Chief Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact as the
factual summary of this case.
IV.
ANALYSIS
The
Chief Magistrate Judge conducted an extensive examination of
Plaintiff's complaint along the exhibits filed with the
original complaint, Plaintiff's charge and amended charge
of discrimination dated April 27, 2016 and September 9, 2016
that were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the Tennessee Human Rights Commission. (ECF
No. 7, fn.3). In the report and recommendation, the Chief
Magistrate Judge analyzed whether Plaintiff's complaint
states viable claims of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §
2000e against the Defendant. In reference to the federal
claims, the Chief Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged facts in her complaint to infer
claims of discrimination in employment based on race and
retaliation against her former employer. However, the Chief
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's claim of color discrimination because
Plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
by not alleging color discrimination in her THRC charge or
alternatively, for Plaintiff's failure to specifically
allege that she had actually suffered discrimination based on
color instead of race. (ECF No. 7, pp. 8-12). The Court
adopts these findings.
Upon a
de novo review of the pro se complaint, the
charges of discrimination and the report and recommendations,
the Court finds that the Chief Magistrate Judge's legal
conclusions are correct and the report and recommendation
should be adopted in its entirety. As noted, Plaintiff has
not filed any objections to the report and recommendation
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The Court agrees that the
complaint sufficiently alleges claims of race discrimination
and retaliation in employment. As such, these claims should
proceed as recommended. Monell v. Department of Social
Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978);
Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1247
(6th Cir. 1989); and City of Canton v. Harris, 489
U.S. 379, 387-88 (1989).
CONCLUSION
Upon a
de novo review, the Court adopts the Chief
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and orders
that Plaintiff's claim of discrimination in employment
based on color be dismissed but that the claims of
discrimination based on race and retaliation in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. survive.
Accordingly,
the Clerk of Court is directed to issue process for Lincare
and to deliver that process to the U.S. Marshal for service
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1). All costs associated with
the service of the complaint on Lincare will be advanced by
the United States. Plaintiff Lashondra Henderson is ordered
to serve a copy of all of the documents filed in this matter
upon counsel for Lincare, make a certificate of service on
every document filed, to familiarize herself with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this
Court[1] and to notify the Clerk of any change in
her mailing address or extended periods of absences.
IT
...