Wells v. Gourmet Services Inc. et al (MAG+)

Filing 68

ORDER: It is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that: 1. The 64 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells's Title VII claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, anddeprivation of pay on the basis of national origin is dismissed with prejudice;3. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells's claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII on the basis of his race is dismissed with prejudice; 4. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells'sclaim that he was deprived of pay in violation of Title VII on the basis of his race is dismissed with prejudice; 5. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells's claim subjected to unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII i s dismissed with prejudice; 6. That Wells's state law claims is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 7. That, in all other respects, the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 37 ) is denied; and 8. That this case proceed solely on Wells's FLSA claim. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/9/2014. (dmn, )

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GOURMET SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-516-WKW
WO

ORDER
On July 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. #64) in this
case to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file
in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is the
ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that:
1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.
2. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells’s
Title VII claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, and
deprivation of pay on the basis of national origin is dismissed with prejudice;
3. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells’s
claim that he was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII on the
basis of his race is dismissed with prejudice;
4. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells’s
claim that he was deprived of pay in violation of Title VII on the basis of his race is
dismissed with prejudice;

5. That, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Wells’s
claim subjected to unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII is dismissed with
prejudice;
6. That Wells’s state law claims is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
7. That, in all other respects, the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 37) is
denied; and
8. That this case proceed solely on Wells’s FLSA claim.
DONE this the 9th day of September, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE