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.

Carter v. Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC

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

December 23, 2019

SANDRENA REBECCA CARTER, Plaintiff,
v.
TRUECORE BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On October 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Frensley issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 26), recommending that the Court grant Defendant TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC's Motion to Dismiss[1] (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff filed timely Objections (Doc. No. 30).[2] For the following reasons, the Magistrate Judge's R&R is ADOPTED in part and MODIFIED in part.

         I. Background

         The Court approves and adopts the background section as stated in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Doc. No. 26 at 1-4).

         II. Standard of Review

         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)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). Objections must be specific; a general objection to the report and recommendation is not sufficient and may result in waiver of further review. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). In conducting its review of the objections, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The district court is not required to review-under a de novo or any other standard-those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Id. at 151.

         III. The Report and Recommendation

         The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss because the Sixth Circuit has held that “sexual orientation discrimination is not discrimination based on sex as that term is defined in Title VII jurisprudence.” (Doc. No. 26 at 8). Thus, the Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff's claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation fail as a matter of law because “[m]embership in a protected class is an element of a prima facie case of discrimination and harassment, and is necessary for a claim of retaliation because, if Title VII does not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation, a complaint of sexual harassment based on sexual orientation cannot constitute protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim.” (Id. (citing Gilbert v. Country Music Ass'n, Inc., 432 Fed.Appx. 516, 520 (6th Cir. 2011)). Further, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Steven Tomlin from the suit on the additional basis that “Title VII does not allow for individual liability[.]”[3] (Doc. No. 26 at 10).

         IV. Plaintiff's Objections

         Plaintiff asserts a variety of objections to the R&R, which can be categorized into four general categories (1) the Magistrate Judge erred in considering Defendant's motion to dismiss because Defendant did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a); (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that Plaintiff is asserting a claim of sexual orientation discrimination and, according to Plaintiff, she is actually asserting a retaliation claim that should not be dismissed because it is not related to sexual discrimination; (3) the Magistrate Judge erred in holding that the individually named Defendants are not be liable under Title VII; and (4) the Magistrate Judge's recitation of law is “new argument that was not made in the Defendant's motion.” (Doc. No. 30).

         V. Analysis

         1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)

         Plaintiff's first objection is a procedural one. She asserts that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) required Defendant to file an answer to her complaint and Defendant “failed to ‘answer to Plaintiff's Responses' for reasons(s) unknown.” (Doc. No. 30 at 3-4). Therefore, “she was not afforded fair notice” when the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of her Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 30 at 5).

         Plaintiff correctly notes that Rule 7 provides that only certain pleadings are allowed. But Rule 12 permits the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint based on certain enumerated defenses.[4] Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (“a party may assert the following defenses by motion: . . . (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”). In fact, Rule 12 requires that any motion to dismiss based on these enumerated defenses, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (the defense Defendant asserts here), be filed before an answer is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (“A motion asserting [the enumerated defenses] must be made before pleading [(i.e., filing an answer)] if a responsive pleading is allowed.” (emphasis added)).[5] In other words, a defendant may raise the defense of failure to state a cognizable claim in a pre-an ...


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.