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)

Download PDF
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

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?