May v. AT&T Integrated Disabilty

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 7/3/13. (ASL)

FILED
2013 Jul-03 PM 03:42
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DORIS W. MAY,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
11-AR-1923-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The report and recommendation submitted by the magistrate
judge in the above-entitled case on March 8, 2013, is comprehensive
and more than adequately recites the pertinent facts and procedural
circumstances for deciding whether the magistrate judge reached the
legal

conclusions

correct.

this

court

hereinafter

finds

to

have

been

The only important fact absent from the report and

recommendation is the one inserted by plaintiff, Doris W. May
(“May”), in her objections to the report and recommendation,
namely, that after the matter was under submission, the Social
Security Administration found May to be totally disabled as of May
16, 2010.

This fact, which is not in the “administrative record”

for the purposes of considering May’s ERISA claim, is the subject
of defendants’ motion to strike.
During her vain pro se attempts to prove her entitlement to
ERISA disability benefits, May was no match for defendants, AT&T
Corporation,

AT&T

Integrated

Disability,

and

Sedgwick

Management Services, Inc., and their experienced counsel.

Claims
Because

the magistrate judge dealt separately with the ERISA claim, this
court will do likewise.
In addition to invoking ERISA, May attempted to pursue claims
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Rehabilitation
Act (“RA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Given
warning after warning that she was suing the wrong entity under
these statutes, she never amended her complaint to seek relief from
her employer.

It is undisputed that her only employer was AT&T

Services, Inc.

If she expected the magistrate judge to overlook

the fact that she continuously failed to sue the only entity
against

which

disappointed.

she

could

pursue

such

claims,

she

has

been

The magistrate judge is correct in recommending a

dismissal of the action insofar as it relies on FMLA, RA, and/or
ADA.

The magistrate judge correctly, if redundantly, points out

that

these

three

claims

are

also

barred

by

the

statutes

of

limitations applicable to them.
The insurmountable obstacles in the way of May’s claims under
FMLA, RA, and ADA, may explain May’s failure to interpose any
objections

to

the

recommendation

that

defendants’

motion

for

summary judgment against May as to these statutory claims be
granted.
May’s objections to the report and recommendation not meeting
the requisite standards of specificity with respect to her FMLA,
RA, and ADA claims, they are DEEMED abandoned.

2

See Rule 72(b)(2)

and (3), F.R.Civ.P.

Accordingly, they will not be given de novo

consideration by this court.

On their face they are lacking in

colorable merit for the reasons articulated by the magistrate
judge.
Because the magistrate judge’s renditions of the facts and his
conclusions of law are correct with respect to May’s FMLA, RA, and
ADA claims, his opinion is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the
court on these issues.
A separate order effectuating this opinion will be entered.
DONE this 3rd day of July, 2013.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3