Massenburg v. Hunt et al

Filing 64

ORDER: the court GRANTS defendants Hunt and Korando's motion to dismiss Massenburg's amended complaint [D.E. 40] and DISMISSES Massenburg's claims against Hunt and Korando with prejudice. Hunt and Korando are no longer defendants in this action. Hunt and Korando's original motion to dismiss [D.E. 27] has been WITHDRAWN. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 8/2/2017. Filed copy mailed to pro se plaintiff. (Jenkins, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-957-D

NANCY MASSENBURG,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

ORDER

)

ASHLEY IillNT,
INNOVATIVE TALENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
KIM KORANDO, ESQ.,
UNNAMED CLIENT DISCRIMINATORY
HIRING POLICY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On April 17, 2017, defendants Ashley Hunt and Kimberly Korando (collectively
"defendants") moved to dismiss Nancy Massenburg's ("Massenburg" or "plaintiff'') prose complaint
[D.E. 27]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1 )--(2), (4)--(6). On May 3, 2017, Massenburg filed an amended
complaint [D.E. 33].
On May 4, 2017, defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss Massenburg's complaint [D.E.
39], moved to dismiss Massenburg's amended complaint [D.E. 40], and filed a memorandum in
support of the motion to dismiss [D.E. 41]. On May 30, 2017, Massenburg responded in opposition
[D.E. 47, 48]. On June 12, 2017, defendants replied [D.E. 50].
The court grants defendants' motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Massenburg

has failed to state a Title VII claim against Hunt or Korando.

See,~'

Lissau v. S. Food Serv., 159

F.3d 177, 180--81 (4th Cir. 1998). Massenburg can only pursue a Title VII claim against defendant
Innovative Talent Solutions, Inc. See id. Massenburg also has failed to state a due process claim

againstKorando or Hunt under 18 U.S.C. § 241. See,~, Tribblev. Reedy. No. 89-6781, 1989WL
126783, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 20, 1989) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Farrow v. North
Carolin~ No.

5:13-CT-3100-D, 2014 WL 12495278, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 17, 2014) (unpublished);

Anderson-El v. Chief ofAux. Servs., No. 5:11-CT-3170-0,2012 WL5305747,at*2(E.D.N.C. Mar.
12, 2012) (unpublished). Finally, Massenburg has failed to state a claim against Korando or Hunt
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. See,

~'

Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 724-25 (1983); A Society

Without A Name v. Virgini~ 655 F.3d 342,346--47 (4th Cir. 2011); Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370,
1376--77 (4th Cir. 1995); Buschi v. Kirve!l, 775 F.2d 1240, 1251-52 (4th Cir. 1985); Ward v. Coastal
Carolina Health Care. P.A., 597 F. Supp. 2d 567,572-73 (E.D.N.C. 2009); Shu v. Core Indus .. Inc.,
No. 7:989-CV-130-BR2, 1999 WL 33589276, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 1999) (unpublished).
In sum, the court GRANTS defendants Hunt and Korando' s motion to dismiss Massenburg's
amended complaint [D.E. 40] and DISWSSES Massenburg's claims against Hunt and Korando with
prejudice. Hunt and Korando are no longer defendants in this action. Hunt and Korando's original
motion to dismiss [D.E. 27] has been WITHDRAWN. See [D.E. 39].
SO ORDERED.

This~ day

of August 2017.

2