Cummings v. Concrete Protection & Restoration, Inc.

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 4/30/2015. (c/m 5/1/15 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * ALPHONSO CUMMINGS * Plaintiff * CIVIL NO. JKB-15-0293 v. * CONCRETE PROTECTION & RESTORATION, INC. * * Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM The Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against the Defendant alleging that he was denied employment because of racial discrimination (ECF No. 1). The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint noting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, that a “right to sue” letter was ever issued by the EEOC, or that such letter was attached to the Complaint as required (ECF No. 7). The Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s argument that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking due to the absence of a “right to sue” letter (see ECF No. 9). The Court has carefully examined Plaintiff’s submissions. In his pro se Complaint form, at Paragraph No. 10, he lists “Nov. 17, 2014” after the form’s statement “I received a right to sue letter (attached copy) on the following date:.” Otherwise, in the Plaintiff’s Complaint there is no reference to a “right to sue” letter, and none has been attached. The Defendant has failed to demonstrate, directly or indirectly, that he received a “right to sue” letter. Accordingly, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction and the case will be DISMISSED by separate Order. DATED this 30th day of April, 2015. BY THE COURT: ____________/s/_____________________ James K. Bredar United States District Judge

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?