Adams

Filing 62

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations in its entirety and that all claims against Leland E Tollett, Debbie Trost, Artee Williams, Mark Graham and James D Smith should be, and hereby are, dismissed; and, that all claims under the Serbanes-Oxley Act should be, and hereby are, dismissed; and that all claims under 42 U.S.C 1981 should be, and hereby are, dismissed. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on April 13, 2010. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION DALE B. ADAMS v. TYSON FOODS, INC.,ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF Case No. 09-3054 DEFENDANTS N O W on this 13th day of April 2010, comes on for consideration t h e Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #10) filed on January 6, 2010. The Court, being well and s u f f i c i e n t l y advised, finds as follows: 1. T h e Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge ( d o c u m e n t #10) was filed on January 6, 2010. 2. for an O n January 20, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff's motion extension of time to the respond to the Report time and to Recommendation extending plaintiff's response F e b r u a r y 25, 2010. 3. O n February 18, 2010, the Court again granted a motion b y the plaintiff and extended the plaintiff's response time to M a r c h 11, 2010. 4. T h e plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Objections to Report of t h e Magistrate Judge on March 10, 2010 (document #44). 5. T h e plaintiff filed this employment discrimination case p u r s u a n t to Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( A D E A ) , the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. 6. T h e Report and Recommendation reviews plaintiff's claims a n d recommends: * t h a t all Title VII claims against individually named d e f e n d a n t s be dismissed because the Eighth Circuit has held that s u p e r v i s o r s may not be individually held liable under Title VII; * that all ADEA claims against individually named d e f e n d a n t s be dismissed because the ADEA provides no basis for i n d i v i d u a l liability for supervisory employees; * t h a t all ADA claims against individually named defendants s h o u l d be dismissed because supervisors cannot be held liable in t h e i r individual capacity; * defendants t h a t all Equal Pay Act claims against individually named should be dismissed because the plaintiff has not a l l e g e d any of the individually named defendants were responsible f o r the pay disparity; * t h a t plaintiff's claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are s u b j e c t to dismissal for failure to exhaust his administrative r e m e d i e s and because no Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim is stated on the f a c t s alleged in the complaint; * t h a t all claims against individually named defendants f a i l under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act because the Act does not c o n t e m p l a t e individual liability on the part of supervisors and managers; -2- * t h a t plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 should be d i s m i s s e d because his race does not fall within the protection a f f o r d e d by 1981; and, * the t h a t the claims against Artee Williams, the Director of Department of Workforce Services, are subject to Arkansas d i s m i s s a l because employees of the Arkansas Department of Workforce S e r v i c e s or the Arkansas Employment Security Division are entitled t o absolute immunity. 7. In the plaintiff's objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , he: * "agrees with the report about all of the recommendations t o dismiss individual defendants from his Title VII claim, ADEA, A D A , and EPA claims." * a r g u e s that "several federal agencies have violated the l a w in order to prevent plaintiff from even learning about the S a r b a n e s - O x l e y Act." * s t a t e s that he would like to pursue a Sarbanes-Oxley Act i n a separate matter; * petition"; * " a g r e e s to remove 42 U.S.C. 1981 out of his amended agrees to "delete the Ark. code out of his amended p e t i t i o n . . . ."; and, * " a g r e e s to remove AR Dept of Workforce Services out of h i s amended petition . . . ." -3- 8. T h e Court also notes that in plaintiff's objections, he A separate motion r e p e a t e d l y requests the appointment of counsel. f o r appointment of counsel is pending and the request will be h a n d l e d in due course. 9. T h e Court finds that, to the extent the plaintiff objects t o the Report and Recommendation, plaintiff's objections offer neither law nor fact The which Court warrant further denial finds of the the Report Report and and Recommendation. that R e c o m m e n d a t i o n should, therefore, be, and hereby is, adopted in its e n t i r e t y , and that: * all claims against James D. Smith, Leland Tollett, Mark G r a h a m , Artee Williams, the Director of the Arkansas Department of W o r k f o r c e Services, and Debbie Trost should be, and hereby are, d i s m i s s e d ; and, that * a l l claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act should be, and h e r e b y are, dismissed; and, that * a l l claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 should be, and hereby a r e , dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT -4-

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?