Taite v. State of Alabama, Department of Personnel et al (MAG+)

Filing 33

ORDER directing that, after an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The magistrate judge's 32 recommendation, to which no objections were filed, is adopted; (2) Plaintiff Brenda Taite's state-law cla ims are dismissed; (3) The motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 11 and 24 ) are denied to the following extent: (a) Plaintiff Taite is allowed, within 15 days, to amend her complaint to assert Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims (alleging fac ts in support of her claims) against either defendant Alabama Personnel Department or the other official-capacity defendants, but not against both; (b) Plaintiff Taite's § 1981/1983 individual capacity claim against defendant Alice Ann Byrn e (for allegedly interfering with her employment relationship with Dartmouth College) still remains pending and is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings; (4) The motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 11 and 24) are granted to the foll owing extent: (a) Plaintiff Taite's Title VII claims against defendant Alabama Personnel Department and the official-capacity defendants are dismissed without prejudice; (b) All of plaintiff Taite's remaining claims and requests for relief are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/23/12. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

BRENDA TAITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11cv739-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the record,
it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The magistrate judge's recommendation (Doc. No.
32), to which no objection were filed, is adopted.
(2) Plaintiff Brenda Taite’s state-law claims are
dismissed.
(3) The motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 11 and 24) are
denied to the following extent:
(a) Plaintiff Taite is allowed, within 15
days, to amend her complaint to assert Title VII
discrimination and retaliation claims (alleging
facts in support of her claims) against either

defendant Alabama Personnel Department or the
other

official-capacity

defendants,

but

not

against both.
(b) Plaintiff Taite’s § 1981/1983 individualcapacity claim against defendant Alice Ann Byrne
(for allegedly interfering with her employment
relationship
remains

with

pending

Dartmouth

and

is

College)

referred

back

still
to

the

magistrate judge for further proceedings.
(4) The motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 11 and 24) are
granted to the following extent:
(a) Plaintiff Taite’s Title VII claims against
defendant Alabama Personnel Department and the
official-capacity

defendants

are

dismissed

without prejudice.
(b) All of plaintiff Taite’s remaining claims and
requests for relief are dismissed with prejudice.
DONE, this the 23rd day of August, 2012.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE