DOYER v. RSU 16 et al

Filing 13

ORDER Affirming Report and Recommended Decision re 10 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by DENNIS DUQUETTE, RSU 16. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jlg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROXANNE DOYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
RSU 16, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:14-cv-00025-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On April 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed with the Court his Recommended
Decision. Recommended Decision on Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) (Recommended
Decision). Ms. Doyer filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on May 12,
2014.

Objection Mem. to Portion of Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 11)

(Objection). The Defendants responded on May 21, 2014, requesting that the Court
adopt the Recommended Decision in full.

Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Objection to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12).

The Court has

reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record. The Court has made a de novo determination of all matters
adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision and the Court concurs
with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set
forth in his Recommended Decision. The Court determines no further proceeding is
necessary.

In her objection, Ms. Doyer describes the Magistrate Judge’s decision as
“thorough and thoughtful.” Objection at 1. The Court agrees; nevertheless, the Court
will address Ms. Doyer’s specific objections. In the Court’s view, the Magistrate Judge
is correct for the reasons he described in detail. The Magistrate Judge concluded that
the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be
granted on all claims except for her (1) claim of First Amendment retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) claim of defamation; thus, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that all claims—except the latter two—be dismissed. Recommended
Decision at 11.

Ms. Doyer’s primary objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation of dismissal for “all other claims” errs because it confuses protected
class with protected activity. Objection at 2-6. While Ms. Doyer correctly notes that
“the Magistrate state[d] the Plaintiff was not a member of the protected classes”
under Title VII and Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), id. at 2 (emphasis added),
she proceeds to argue that the Amended Complaint properly states a claim under
these statutes because she has demonstrated that she engaged in protected activities.
Id. at 2-6. Ms. Doyer’s focus misses the point: Ms. Doyer’s Amended Complaint
cannot be reasonably construed to allege that she was a member of a protected class,
and only protected class membership triggers the protections afforded under the Title
VII and MHRA claims that she brought. Therefore, Ms. Doyer’s objection fails.1

Ms. Doyer also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that individual Defendant
Dennis Duquette is entitled to dismissal of both the Title VII and MHRA claims because neither
statute authorizes individual liability. Objection at 6 (citing Recommended Decision at 8). As part of
this Court’s de novo review, it concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion on this
issue.
1

2

For the reasons in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision and the
reasons set forth herein, the Court overrules Roxanne Doyer’s objection to the
Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge and AFFIRMS the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommended Decision (ECF No. 10). It is further ORDERED that the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) be and hereby is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as set out in the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision and this
order.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of August, 2014

3