Deo v. Meier, et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting 34 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting 21 Motion to Dismiss and to Confirm Arbitration Award - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 02/13/2013. (Baker, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 5:11-CV-602-FL

ANNAPURNA DEO,
Plaintiff,

v.
BRUCE MEIER, ROBERTA BENTON,
EVELYN STURDIVANT, DUKE
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding defendants' motion to enforce an
arbitration award and to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (DE# 21). Plaintiffhas responded to defendants' motion and defendants
have replied. Plaintiff has also filed in opposition to the M&R, to which defendants responded. In
this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated the instant action, pro se, by complaint filed October 31, 2011, alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination. Compl.

~~

3, 6. With benefit ofthe parties' briefing, the magistrate judge submitted an M&R, proposing that
this court grant defendants' motion to enforce arbitration and dismiss the case.
The magistrate judge concluded that the arbitration proceedings were conducted without bias,
and so the arbitration award should be confirmed. The magistrate judge further found that the

complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because all of plaintiffs claims
were already arbitrated, the individual defendants are not subject to suit under the Title VII definition
of"employers," and defendant Duke Health Technology Solutions ("DHTS') never was properly
served.
COURT'S DISCUSSION
This court reviews de novo the parts of the M&R to which plaintiff objects. Plaintiff first
objects to the finding of improper service upon defendant DHTS, for which summons was returned
by the United States Postal Service. Plaintiffs objection is immaterial to the outcome because the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Even if service was perfected and personal jurisdiction over
defendant DHTS achieved, plaintiffs case still would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, plaintifflists objections that re-allege bias in the arbitration process and employment
discrimination. Upon de novo review of the record, this court adopts the findings of the magistrate
judge that the arbitration process was conducted without bias, and that the employment
discrimination claims cannot be re-asserted in this court.
This court has reviewed the parties' briefings, the M&R, and the law applicable to the issues
presented by defendants' motion. This court finds no error with the well-researched, thoughtful
M&R submitted by the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, this court hereby ADOPTS that

recommendation as its own, and, for the reasons stated more fully in the M&R, defendants' motion
is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, defendants' motion to enforce an arbitration award and to dismiss the

2

complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and (6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (DE# 21), is
GRANTED. The clerk is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of February, 2013.

3