May v. AT&T Integrated Disabilty
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 7/3/13. (ASL)
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
DORIS W. MAY,
AT&T CORPORATION, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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
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
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
Management Services, Inc., and their experienced counsel.
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
It is undisputed that her only employer was AT&T
If she expected the magistrate judge to overlook
the fact that she continuously failed to sue the only entity
The magistrate judge is correct in recommending a
dismissal of the action insofar as it relies on FMLA, RA, and/or
The magistrate judge correctly, if redundantly, points out
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
summary judgment against May as to these statutory claims be
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.
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?