Jackson v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al

Filing 27

ORDER directing as follows: 1) The 26 Objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 25 Recommendation is ADOPTED; and 3) Dfts' 15 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 8/31/2010. (wcl, )

Jackson v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (MAG+)

Doc. 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION D IO N D R A JACKSON, P l a in tif f , v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:09-CV-604-WKW [WO]

ORDER O n August 9, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed an Amended Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n ("Recommendation") in this case. (Doc. # 25.) On August 23, 2010,

P la in tif f Diondra Jackson filed an objection to the dismissal of her Title VII claim as time b a rre d . (Doc. # 26.) Ms. Jackson does not challenge the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that s h e failed to file her complaint within ninety days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the E q u a l Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). She contends, however, that her d e la y in commencing this action was the combined consequence of the cessation of attorney re p re se n ta tio n and her lack of knowledge of filing procedures and deadlines. Ms. Jackson a rg u e s that these hindrances justified her delay and that, therefore, she should be excused f r o m the ninety-day filing period. (Doc. # 26.) The Magistrate Judge considered her ju s tif ic a tio n s , but concluded that the circumstances did not warrant equitable tolling of the n in e ty-d a y limitations period. (Doc. # 25, at 9-10.) This court agrees.

Dockets.Justia.com

U p o n an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the objection lacks merit. For the reasons s ta te d in the Recommendation, Ms. Jackson has not shown "extraordinary circumstances" fo r the untimely filing. Jackson v. Astrue, 506 F.3d 1349, 1353 (11th Cir. 2007).

A c c o r d in g ly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. 3. T h e objection (Doc. # 26) is OVERRULED; T h e Recommendation (Doc. # 25) is ADOPTED; and D e f e n d a n ts ' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 15) is GRANTED.

An appropriate judgment will be entered. D O N E this 31st day of August, 2010. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2