Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gwyn v. Pressen

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

April 4, 2018

JAMES GWYN, Plaintiff
v.
JOSEPH PRESSON “Mr. Lee” and RICOH AMERICAS CORP., Defendants

          ORDER

          ALETAA.TRAUGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Favor and Reward (Docket No. 9), to which Defendants have filed a Response (Docket No. 12). Although this Motion asks the court to find in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Plaintiff is actually adding information and prayers for relief to his Complaint. To the extent this document is a Motion, it is DENIED, but the court has considered its allegations as part of Plaintiff's Complaint.

         Also pending before the court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 17), Objections filed by Plaintiff (Docket No. 18), and a Response to those Objections filed by Defendants (Docket No. 19). When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation to which a proper objection is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, review further evidence, or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, the Response, and the file. For the reasons that follow, the Objections of the Plaintiff are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved.

         Plaintiff's Complaint, as amended, alleges that he was working in a “temp” job for Defendant Ricoh Americas Corp.[1] when his manager, “Mr. Lee, ”[2] disrespected Plaintiff, got upset with Plaintiff, pointed his finger in Plaintiff's face, and fired Plaintiff, all because of Plaintiff's race. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, to establish a claim for racial discrimination under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his job and performed it satisfactorily; (3) despite his qualifications and performance, he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or treated less favorably than a similarly-situated individual outside the protected class. See Vincent v. Brewer Co., 514 F.3d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 2007).

         The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the second, third and fourth elements of his claim. In response, Plaintiff has not specifically objected to a particular part of the Magistrate Judge's opinion, but, rather he objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion. In his Objections, Plaintiff has simply stated, in a conclusory fashion, that he was qualified for the job and performed it satisfactorily; that another employee (Robert), who is white, was not treated the same as Plaintiff; and that he suffered an adverse employment action by being fired.[3]

         In addition to the lack of factual support for his sparse allegations, as found by the Magistrate Judge, the court notes that Plaintiff has failed to show that Robert was “similarly-situated” to Plaintiff, as required to demonstrate the fourth element of a race discrimination claim. Plaintiffs “Addendum” to the Complaint identifies Robert as a full-time employee, not a “temp” Docket No. 10-1 at 3. Plaintiff has alleged nothing about Robert's job requirements, length of service or qualifications to show that he was similarly-situated.

         Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the required elements for a Title VII race discrimination claim.[4] Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is approved, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED

         This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Defendants assert that the proper name of the corporation is Richo USA, Inc.

[2] Defendants also assert that the individual Defendant's proper name is Joseph Lee ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.