Wiggins v. University Hospital et al

Filing 16

ORDER vacating this order 13 Order on Report and Recommendations. Further, plaintiff's objections are overruled and the R&R is Adopted and defendants Thomas and Mason are Dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 6/26/17. (cmr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION MACHELLE WIGGINS, Plaintiff, CV 117-026 v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; DANETTE THOMAS; and VITA MASON, Defendants. ORDER Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned employment discrimination case pro se and is proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Upon screening the complaint, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff had arguably stated claims for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and directed the United States Marshal to serve Defendant University Hospital. (Doc. no. 8.) In a companion Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Defendants Thomas and Mason because relief under Title VII is against the employer, not individual employees who violated the Act. (Doc. no. 6, p. 4.) Plaintiff has now submitted her objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R (doc. no. 15), and because the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R before Plaintiff submitted her objections, the Court VACATES its earlier adoptidn order (doc. no. 13). Reviewing Plaintiffs objections, which include numerous medical and employment records, the Court finds Plaintiffs objections do not change the Court's prior ruling that dismissal of the individual Defendants is proper. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the R&R of the Magistrate Judg^ as its opinion and DISMISSES Defendants Thomas and Mason. SO ORDERED this^^day of June, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia. J. RANJ3AIIHALL, CHIEF JUDGI UNITED !5^ATES DISTRICT COURT iOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?