Scavella v. Help at Home, Inc. et al (JOINT ASSIGN)

Filing 12

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; (2) plf's 11 Objection is OVERRULED; and (3) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because Plf has failed to state any claim on which relief may be granted. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/8/17. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RAINELLE NICOLE SCAVELLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HELP AT HOME, INC. and DEB
CHAMBERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-11-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On May 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 10)
to which Plaintiff timely objected (Doc. # 11). Upon an independent and de novo
review of the record and consideration of the Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objection
is due to be overruled, the Recommendation adopted, and this case dismissed prior
to service of process for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 1
1

Federal district courts in this state, as well as several of the circuits, have held that
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not only to those filed by prisoners.
See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the screening provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) apply to non-prisoners); Atamian v. Burns, 236 F. App’x 753, 754 (3d
Cir. 2007) (“[T]he provisions of § 1915(e) apply to all in forma pauperis complaints, not simply
those filed by prisoners.”); Robert v. Garrett, No. 3:07cv625-MHT, 2007 WL 2320064, at *1
(M.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2007) (“Despite Robert’s non-prisoner status, the Court is required to review
his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1), (e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), and sua sponte dismiss the
complaint or any portion thereof which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks
damages from defendants who are immune.”). Although Plaintiff here is not a prisoner, her
application to proceed in forma pauperis obligates the court to review her complaint prior to
service of process in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Ms. Scavella is a black female who for three days in August 2016 worked as
a receptionist for Defendant Help at Home, Inc. According to the complaint,
Plaintiff was terminated on her third day without any explanation. Based on her
superior’s “[g]laring, avoiding eye contact and inappropriate tone of voice” during
her three days of employment (Doc. # 8-1, at 1), Plaintiff surmises that her
termination must have been the result of racial discrimination.
As the Magistrate Judge wrote in his Recommendation, “other than Plaintiff’s
gut feeling that her interactions with [her superior] were a result of a white
supremacist mindset and that her firing was a result of her race and hair texture, she
provides no facts that would lend support to her theory.” (Doc. # 10, at 6.) Plaintiff’s
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusations are not enough to satisfy the
pleading standards of Rule 8. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(holding that a complaint will not suffice if it tenders “naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

And,

although Plaintiff filed a document tagged “My Objection,” its contents do nothing
more than reassert the same bare accusations found in her complaint. (Doc. # 11.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 10) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 11) is OVERRULED; and

2

3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because Plaintiff has failed to state any
claim on which relief may be granted.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 8th day of June, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3