Oliver v. Dothan City Board of Education (MAG+)

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED: 1) Plf's 10 Objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 8 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), Plf's Title VII claim against Dft Dothan City Board of Education is DISMISSE D for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Title VII claim was not timely filed; 4) Plf's state law defamation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice on grounds that, pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c), the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over that claim; and 5) There being no other claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/26/2016. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHERRYL OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOTHAN CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-677-WKW
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 8)
to which Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. # 10.) The court has considered the
record and the objections and has conducted an independent and de novo review of
those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).

Plaintiff has not shown any error in the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation that her Title VII claim be dismissed for failure to timely file suit.
Plaintiff’s objections and the attached exhibits confirm that she did not file suit
within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter. (Doc. # 10-1 at page 5.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 10) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 8) is ADOPTED;

3.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), Plaintiff’s Title VII claim

against Defendant Dothan City Board of Education is DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Title VII claim was not
timely filed;
4.

Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice

on grounds that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to exercise
jurisdiction over that claim; and
5.

There being no other claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, this

case is DISMISSED.
Final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 26th day of October, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2