Raino v. Target Corporation

Filing 4

ORDER re Report and Recommendations 3 . Raino's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. Raino's Title VII claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Raino's state-law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 8, 2017. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Linda Raino,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-2341 (JNE/DTS)
ORDER

Target Corporation,
Defendant.
This is a pro se action brought by Linda Raino against Target Corporation. Raino
claimed that Target did not hire her after it learned she had a criminal record. She
asserted claims against Target under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Minnesota’s “ban the box” law, Minn. Stat. § 364.021. In a Report and Recommendation
dated July 11, 2017, the magistrate judge recommended that Raino’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis be denied, that her Title VII claim be dismissed with prejudice
for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and that her state-law claim be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. No objection to the
Report and Recommendation has been received.
As to Raino’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and Title VII claim, the
Court accepts the recommended disposition. As to her state-law claim, the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it and dismisses it without prejudice.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635,
639 (2009) (“With respect to supplemental jurisdiction in particular, a federal court has
subject-matter jurisdiction over specified state-law claims, which it may (or may not)

1

choose to exercise. A district court’s decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after
dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.”
(citation omitted)); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a court
grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim, the court generally retains
discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over
pendent state-law claims.”). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Raino’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is
DENIED.

2.

Raino’s Title VII claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

Raino’s state-law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 8, 2017
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2