Belton v. Russell County Board of Education et al

Filing 98

OPINION AND ORDER; it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The US Magistrate Judge's 95 Recommendation is rejected as to the dismissal of the plf's "§ 1983/1981 retaliation claims asserted against all dfts and the Title VII retaliation cl aim asserted against the Board in Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint." Recommendation (doc. no. 95 ) at 20-21. These claims are remanded back to the magistrate judge for consideration, with the dfts to be given a reasonable opportunity to move for summary judgment on them as set forth in this order; (2) The US Magistrate Judge's 95 Recommendation is adopted in all other respects; (3) The dfts' 70 , 72 , & 73 Motions for Summary Judgment are granted as to all other cla ims, with summary judgment entered in favor of the dfts and against the plf as to these claims and with the plf taking nothing by her amended complaint as to these claims; (4) The ONLY claims left in this case are the plf's "§ 1983/198 1 retaliation claims asserted against all dfts and the Title VII retaliation claim asserted against the Board in Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint." Recommendation (doc. no. 95 ) at 20-21. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/8/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

MARILYN BELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:10cv814-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is now before the court on the United
States Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for dismissal of
some

of

the

plaintiff’s

retaliation

claims

and

for

summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s other claims.
After an independent and de novo review of the record,
the recommendation will be rejected in part and adopted
in part.
As to the retaliation claims, the magistrate judge
appears to have divided them into two groups: Group I
(“the § 1983/1981 retaliation claims asserted against all
defendants and the Title VII retaliation claim asserted

against the Board in Count IV of the Second Amended
Complaint”, Recommendation (doc. no. 95) at 20-21), and
Group II (all the other retaliation claims).

As to the

Group I retaliation claims, the magistrate judge notes
that, while the defendants did not move for summary
judgment on them (probably because, due to the extremely
poor drafting of the amended complaint by plaintiff’s
former lawyer, Connie Morrow, it was unclear that they
were even pled), they should still be dismissed because
of plaintiff’s former lawyer’s “failure to comply with
the [court]’s specific directives regarding the manner in
which

plaintiff

was

to

amend

Recommendation (doc. no. 95) at 21.

her

complaint.”

However, the order

setting forth the “directives” stated that, “if plaintiff
... fails to comply fully with this order ..., sanctions
will be imposed against her attorney.”
37) at 3 (emphasis added).
sanctions

(including

plaintiff herself.

Order (doc. no.

The order did not provide for

dismissal

of

claims)

against

The court will therefore reject the

2

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

that

the

Group

I

retaliation claims be dismissed.
The court, however, does not think that it should
proceed to trial on the Group I retaliation claims at
this time.

The defendants’ failure to move for summary

judgment on them was reasonable, for it was unclear that
the amended complaint pled them.

The defendants should,

therefore, now be given an opportunity to seek summary
judgment on these claims as well.

The court will remand

the Group I retaliation claims back to the magistrate
judge, with the defendants to be given a reasonable
opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment on them
and with the magistrate judge then to proceed to consider
the summary-judgment motion in the normal fashion after
giving the plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the
motion.
As to all the remaining claims (including the Group
II retaliation claims), the court concludes, for a number
of reason, that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

3

should be adopted and the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment

granted

plaintiff,

now

on

all

these

proceeding

claims.

pro

se,

First,

the

given

an

was

opportunity to respond (including detailed information on
what steps to take) to the summary-judgment motions but
she failed to submit any evidence in opposition.

Second,

although the magistrate judge’s recommendation expressly
stated

that

she

had

until

a

date

certain

to

file

objections to the recommendation, she again failed to act
in

a

timely

manner.

Admittedly

at

the

pretrial

conference held on June 7, 2012, the plaintiff attempted
to

present

to

the

court

a

bundle

of

documents

in

opposition to defendants’ summary-judgment motions and to
the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

However, these

documents come much too late and will not be considered.
They should have been presented to the magistrate judge
while she was considering the summary-judgment motions.
The plaintiff (a learned school teacher) offered a number
of excuses for her failure to meet the earlier deadlines,

4

but the court does not credit them.

In any event, it

appears that the documents are mostly cumulative.

In her

deposition, which was a part of the defendants’ summaryjudgment motions, the plaintiff testified to most, if not
all,

of

Third

the

and

information

contained

finally,

the

judge’s

recommendation

magistrate

court

in

fully
as

the

agrees
the

documents.
with

the

remaining

claims.
Before

closing,

observation.

the

court

will

make

one

final

At the June 7 pretrial conference, the

plaintiff stated that she had a disability-discrimination
claim.

There is not such claim in this case, either in

her second amended complaint or otherwise.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The
recommendation

United
(Doc.

States
No.

95)

Magistrate
is

rejected

Judge’s
as

to

the

dismissal of the plaintiff’s “§ 1983/1981 retaliation
claims asserted against all defendants and the Title VII

5

retaliation claim asserted against the Board in Count IV
of the Second Amended Complaint.” Recommendation (doc.
no. 95) at 20-21.

These claims are remanded back to the

magistrate judge for consideration, with the defendants
to be given a reasonable opportunity to move for summary
judgment on them as set forth in this order.
(2) The

United

States

Magistrate

Judge’s

recommendation (Doc. No. 95) is adopted in all other
respects.
(3) The defendants’ motions for summary judgment
(doc. nos. 70, 72, and 73) are granted as to all other
claims, with summary judgment entered in favor of the
defendants and against the plaintiff as to these claims
and with the plaintiff taking nothing by her amended
complaint as to these claims.
(4)

The

plaintiff’s

ONLY
Ҥ

claims

1983/1981

left

in

this

retaliation

case

claims

are

the

asserted

against all defendants and the Title VII retaliation
claim asserted against the Board in Count IV of the

6

Second Amended Complaint.”

Recommendation (doc. no. 95)

at 20-21.
DONE, this the 8th day of June, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE