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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?