Mitchell v. State of Alabama Department of Labor et al(MAG+)

Filing 15

ORDER as follows: 1. Plaintiff's 12 Objection is OVERRULED. 2. The 10 Recommendation is ADOPTED. 3. Defendant Delamar's 7 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 4. Plaintiff's Title VII claims against Defendant Charles Timothy Delamar are DISMISSED with prejudice. 5. There being no other claims currently pending against Defendant Charles Timothy Delamar, Defendant Charles Timothy Delamar is DISMISSED from this action. This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/2/2017. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAL RUTH MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and
CHARLES TIMOTHY DELAMAR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-666-WKW
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

On June 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation. (Doc.
# 10.) On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff Michal Ruth Mitchell filed objections. (Doc.
# 12.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those
portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Charles Timothy
Delamar be dismissed from this Title VII employment discrimination and
retaliation action because, in his individual capacity, he is not Plaintiff’s
“employer” within the meaning of Title VII, and because claims against him in his
official capacity are duplicative of claims against Defendant State of Alabama
Department of Labor.

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Plaintiff contends that she alleged
sufficient facts in her original complaint to state a claim against Defendant
Delamar, or alternatively, that she should be allowed to amend her complaint
(either now1 or after a period of discovery) to state a claim against Defendant
Delamar.

However, Plaintiff provides no argument as to what facts in her

complaint or proposed amended complaint – or what potential additional facts
might be uncovered in discovery – would overcome the pleading defects pointed
out by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant Delamar is not
entitled to qualified immunity is inapposite because the Magistrate Judge did not
rely on qualified immunity as a grounds for recommending dismissal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 12) is OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 10) is ADOPTED.

3.

Defendant Delamar’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED.

4.

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Defendant Charles Timothy

Delamar are DISMISSED with prejudice.
5.

There being no other claims currently pending against Defendant

Charles Timothy Delamar, Defendant Charles Timothy Delamar is DISMISSED
from this action.
1

On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint.
2

6.

This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further

proceedings.
DONE this 2nd day of August, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3