Gordon v. Hyundai (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 18

ORDER as follows: (1) The 17 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and (2) Plaintiff's 15 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process. A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/31/2016. (dmn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION KEITH I. GORDON, JR., Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTORS MANUFACTURING, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-894-WKW ORDER On April 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 17) to which no timely objections have been filed. The Recommendation correctly concludes that dismissal of the complaint, as amended, is required prior to service of process for failure of Plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not pleaded a cognizable claim under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.141(c)(1)(i), and the McDonnell Douglas1 prima facie elements, when used as a guide, demonstrate that the complaint, as amended, does not plausibly suggest intentional discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. See Powell v. Harsco Metal, No. 2:12-CV-4080, 2013 WL 3242759, at *5 (N.D. Ala. June 20, 2013) (explaining that the McDonnell 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Douglas prima facie elements can provide a “helpful guide” in the analysis of whether a complaint plausibly demonstrates intentional discrimination) (citing Bowers v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 509 F. App’x 906, 911 (11th Cir. 2013)); see also Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Although a Title VII complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make out a classic McDonnell Douglas prima facie case, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 . . . (2002), it must provide enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest intentional race discrimination.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 17) is ADOPTED; and (2) Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. # 15) is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 31st day of May, 2016. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?