MOSS v. CAPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS, ACCEPTING and adopting 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 11 Motion to Dismiss. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 08/09/2012. (krb)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TERRINICA N. MOSS,
CASE NO. 4:12cv103-RH/CAS
MEDICAL CENTER et al.,
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This case is before the court on the report and recommendation, ECF No. 15,
and the objections, ECF Nos. 17 and 18. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised
by the objections. The report and recommendation is correct and will be adopted
as the court’s opinion.
The recommendation is that the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be
granted in part and denied in part. One further point deserves mention: the motion
to dismiss, and in turn the report and recommendation, do not address the
plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. District courts in this circuit have held
that supervisors with the capacity to hire and fire or those who can recommend
Case No. 4:12cv103-RH/CAS
Page 2 of 2
such decisions are subject to liability under § 1981. See Moss v. W&A Cleaners,
111 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1188 (M.D. Ala. 2000); Cisero v. Wal-Mart Stores East,
L.P., No. 3:05-CV-1105-J-32-JRK, 2008 WL 2074414 at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 15,
2008); Hornsby v. Three Dollar Café, III, Inc., No. CIVA1:03CV1668GET, 2006
WL 47471 at *4 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2006). See also Burstein v. Emtel, Inc., 137 F.
App’x 205, 208 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding a defendant not liable under § 1981
because he did not participate in the decision at issue). And the fact that the
plaintiff did not sign a contract with the supervisor is not determinative. See
Faraca v. Clements, 506 F.2d 956, 959 (5th Cir. 1975) (stating that “a third party’s
interference with those rights guaranteed under Sections 1981 and 1982 will
subject such a person to personal liability”). These are matters that can be
addressed in due course.
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s
opinion. The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as set out in the report and recommendation. The case is
remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on August 9, 2012.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case No. 4:12cv103-RH/CAS
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?