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, )

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