James v. Montgomery Regional Airport Authority et al (MAG +)

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: (1) The 38 recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is adopted; (2) Dfts' 35 motion to dismiss is granted with respect to plf's Title VII claims but denied in all other respects, and pl f's Title VII claims are dismissed without prejudice; (3) This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
BOOTH T. JAMES, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MONTGOMERY REGIONAL
)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv332-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
asserting

claims

environment,
This

who

is
of

harassment,

lawsuit

is

now

pro

se,

filed

retaliation,
and

this
hostile

retaliatory

before

the

lawsuit
work

discharge.

court

on

the

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
that defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted to the
extent

that

plaintiff’s

Title

VII

claims

should

be

dismissed and that the motion should be denied in all
other

respects.

recommendation.

There
After

are
an

no

objections

independent

and

to
de

the
novo

review

of

the

record,

the

court

concludes

that

the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be adopted.
Upon review of the record, the court notes that
plaintiff

may

have

viable

Title

VII

claims

for

retaliation, retaliatory hostile work environment, and
retaliatory discharge based on his complaints of race
discrimination, including his letter to his employer
alleging race discrimination, which was not attached to
plaintiff’s complaint and therefore was not considered
by

the

Judge.1

Magistrate

potentially

be

pleaded

in

These

a

claims

complaint

in

a

could
manner

sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss; therefore,
and

because

plaintiff

is

proceeding

pro

se,

the

dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII claims is properly
without
such

prejudice.

claims,

amended

he

Should

must

complaint

seek

that

plaintiff

seek

to

to

adds

leave
to

his

to

file
most

pursue
a

new

recent

complaint the additional factual allegations supporting

* The court does not express any opinion
whether these claims are, in fact, meritorious.
2

as

to

such claims.
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The

recommendation

of

the

United

States

Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 38) is adopted.
(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 35) is
granted with respect to plaintiff’s Title VII claims
but denied in all other respects, and plaintiff’s Title
VII claims are dismissed without prejudice.
(3) This case is referred back to the magistrate
judge for further proceedings.
DONE, this the 17th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE