Gonzalez v. Amerigold Logistics LLC
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill's Final Report and Recommendation 27 is ADOPTED, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice 17 is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with each side bearing its own costs, fees, and expenses. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay these proceedings is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/3/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CARLOS E. GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-1533-WSD
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s Final
Report and Recommendation (“R&R) [27] recommending that Plaintiff Carlos E.
Gonzalez’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice [17] be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff Carlos E. Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se, filed his complaint alleging federal claims of race and national origin
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and Section
1981, as well as a number of state law claims, against his former employer
Americold Logistics LLC. On July 19, 2013, Americold filed its answer and, on
July 31, 2013, filed its amended answer, its preliminary report, and its discovery
plan. Plaintiff filed his preliminary report and discovery plan on July 30, 2013.
On August 2, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued her scheduling order and
instructions regarding summary judgment motions.
On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to dismiss without
prejudice [17], and the next day, filed a motion to stay these proceedings pending
the Court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss [18]. In his motion to dismiss, Plaintiff
explained that he is moving to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and wishes to dismiss the
case to re-file in Puerto Rico. On August 14, Americold filed its response in
opposition arguing that venue in Puerto Rico would be improper because
Americold has no operations in Puerto Rico, they are located in Atlanta, Georgia,
the unlawful employment practices alleged occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, and
transfer would be unfairly prejudicial.
On September 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Brill issued an order
acknowledging that Plaintiff has shown no facts that would support venue in
Puerto Rico, and requiring Plaintiff to clarify whether he still wants to withdraw
his motion to dismiss and his motion to stay, or whether he wishes to proceed with
his request to dismiss the case. On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed his written
clarification stating that he wishes to proceed with his request to dismiss this action
without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, Americold filed a response indicating
2
that they no longer oppose Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.
On October 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Brill issued her R&R recommending
that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s motion to stay be
denied as moot.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. V 2011);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation,
a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
Neither party has objected to the R&R’s findings that this action should be
dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings be
denied as moot. The Court finds no plain error in this conclusion. See Fed. R.
3
Civ. P. 41(a)(2); see also McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 856-57
(11th Cir. 1986) (“[I]n most cases, a [voluntary] dismissal should be granted unless
the defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice, other than the mere prospect of a
subsequent lawsuit, as a result.”) (italics in original).
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. Brill’s Final
Report and Recommendation [27] is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Without Prejudice [17] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with each side bearing its own costs, fees, and
expenses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay these
proceedings is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of January 2014.
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?