Alston v. Mississippi Department of Transportation

Filing 78

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 , 75 ; denying as moot 41 , 44 motion to dismiss. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/17/17. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JASON D. ALSTON

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:16-CV-236-DMB-JMV

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This employment discrimination action is before the Court on two Report and
Recommendations issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden—one recommending
that Jason D. Alston’s pending motion for judgment as a matter of law be denied, Doc. #50; and
one recommending that the Mississippi Department of Transportation’s first motion to dismiss be
denied as moot, Doc. #75.
I
Procedural History
On November 29, 2016, Jason D. Alston filed a complaint in this Court alleging that the
Mississippi Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), his former employer, subjected him to
“unlawful race discrimination, disability discrimination, racial harassment, hostile work
environment and retaliation.” Doc. #1 at 1. Approximately two months later, on January 9, 2017,
Alston, with leave of the Court, filed an amended complaint alleging the same claims. Doc. #21.
MDOT answered the amended complaint on February 27, 2017, Doc. #35; and filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 31, 2017, Doc. #41. Alston filed three separate
responses to the motion to dismiss. Doc. #42; Doc. #43; Doc. #47.
On April 6, 2017, Alston filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Doc. #44. MDOT
responded to the motion on April 17, 2017. Doc. #46.

On June 1, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Alston’s motion for judgment as a matter of law be denied
as premature. Doc. #50. A week later, Alston filed a document stating that he had no objection to
the denial of his motion. Doc. #51. MDOT did not object to the Report and Recommendation.
On July 28, 2017, Alston, with leave of the Court, filed a second amended complaint. Doc.
#64. Less than a month later, Alston, again with leave of the Court, filed a third amended
complaint. Doc. #70.
On September 25, 2017, Judge Virden issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that MDOT’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot in light of the filing of the third
amended complaint. Doc. #75. Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
II
Analysis
Where objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, a court must conduct a
“de novo review of those portions of the ... report and recommendation to which the Defendants
specifically raised objections. With respect to those portions of the report and recommendation to
which no objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error on
the face of the record.” Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009)
(citing Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Court
has reviewed each Report and Recommendation and has found no plain error; therefore, both
Report and Recommendations [50][75] are ADOPTED as orders of the Court. Accordingly,
Alston’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [44] is DENIED and MDOT’s motion to dismiss
[41] is DENIED as moot.

2

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of October, 2017.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3