Long v. Alabama Department of Human Resources et al(JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 73

OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/30/2015. (dmn, )

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv176-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff

James

Long

filed

this

lawsuit

against

defendants Alabama Department of Human Resources, Nancy
Buckner, and Sharon E. Ficquette, asserting that he was
retaliated against and ultimately fired for obeying a
subpoena in a co-worker’s employment-discrimination case
against
Amendment

the

Department

rights

statutory rights.

as

in

well

violation
as

his

of

federal

his

First

and

state

This lawsuit is now before the court

on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
should be denied and the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment granted.

Also before the court are plaintiff’s

objections to the recommendation.

After an independent

and de novo review of the record, the court concludes
that plaintiff’s objections should be overruled and the
magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted, albeit in part
only.
As

to

the

plaintiff’s

race

discrimination

and

retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a & 2000e through 2000eB17)
and

the

brought

Civil
through

Rights
the

Act

of

remedial

1866

(42

vehicle

U.S.C.
of

42

§ 1981
U.S.C.

§ 1983), the court agrees with the magistrate judge in
full. As to the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim under
§ 1983, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that
qualified immunity precludes relief.
However, as to the plaintiff’s state-law claim under
the Alabama State Employees Protection Act (1975 Ala.
Code §§ 36-26A-1, et seq.), the court believes that it
should dismiss this claim without prejudice, especially
since there is no state law directly on point.
2

All

parties agree that the court has this discretion and that
the refiling of the claim in state court would not be
time barred.
supplemental
dismissed

A district court has discretion to decline
jurisdiction

all

jurisdiction.”
taken

into

economy,

claims
28

§

Univ.

v.

a

claim

which

“the

it

has

original

Factors

values

fairness,
Cohill,

when

it

1367(c)(3).

include

convenience,

Carnegie-Mellon
(1988).

over

U.S.C.

account

over

of

and

484

U.S.

“has

to

be

judicial
comity.”
343,

350

Courts are strongly encouraged to dismiss state

claims when the federal claims have been resolved prior
to trial.
should

See id. (concluding that “federal court[s]

decline

the

exercise

of

[supplemental]

jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice”
when the federal-law claims have been dismissed prior to
trial).
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE