Fuller v. EEOC, et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 6 Memorandum and Recommendation - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/31/2013. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

REGINALD D. FULLER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
EEOC and PATRICIA MILLER,
Defendants.

REGINALD D. FULLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 5:13-CV-146-FL

No. 5:13-CV-147-FL

These cases come before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b), wherein it is recommended that the court dismiss plaintiff’s complaints on frivolity review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff filed objection to M&R. In this posture, the issues
raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that dismissal without
prejudice is warranted.
DISCUSSION
The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s M&R to which
specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court does not perform a de novo review

where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for
“clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th
Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis in the above captioned cases on
December 11, 2012, asserting claims for damages and injunctive relief against the Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), an EEOC investigator Patricia Miller (“Miller”),
and the North Carolina Employment Security Commission (“ESC”), asserting that defendants
mishandled certain discrimination claims and claims for unemployment benefits asserted in
administrative proceedings in 2011 involving his former employer Bridgestone/Firestone. The
magistrate judge granted the in forma pauperis applications but determined on frivolity review that
this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s claims where plaintiff does not
allege facts supporting a violation of a federal cause of action against these defendants. (M&R at
4). In his objections to the M&R, plaintiff reiterates his claims, asserting in particular that the EEOC
mishandled his claims in the course of administrative proceedings. (Obj. at 1).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court may dismiss an action that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. A case is “frivolous” if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or
fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Upon de novo review, the court finds that plaintiff’s objection provides no reason to disturb

2

the analysis contained in the M&R. Furthermore, the court finds on an alternative basis that
plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), because federal law does not provide a cause of action
to plaintiff directly against the EEOC, the ESC, or its agents with regard to their handling of his
claims in administrative discrimination and benefits proceedings. See Georator Corp. v. Equal
Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 592 F.2d 765, 767 (4th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of suit
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim where suit challenged an EEOC
administrative determination of discrimination); Brown v. U.S. E.E.O.C., 4:12-CV-48-BO, 2012 WL
2565039 *2 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2012) (“Title VII does not permit suits against the EEOC to remedy
a plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the agency's treatment of an EEOC charge.”); Terry v. Dir.,
Complaint Adjudication Div., U.S. E.E.O.C., Office of Fed. Operations, 21 F. Supp. 2d 566, 569
(E.D. Va. 1998) (“Courts have uniformly held that no cause of action exists with respect to the
EEOC’s handling of discrimination claims”); cf. Howard v. Food Lion, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 585,
595-96 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (dismissing claims against ESC appeals officer, noting, inter alia, plaintiffs
may seek redress in ways other than private suits against appeals referees).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, upon de novo review of the record and the recommendation in the
M&R, the court finds that dismissal is warranted for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, and plaintiff’s actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The clerk is directed to close these cases.
SO ORDERED, this the 31st day of October, 2013.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3