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 Hunt and Korando's original motion to dismiss [D.E. 27] has been WITHDRAWN.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126783, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 20, 1989) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Farrow v. North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5:13-CT-3100-D, 2014 WL 12495278, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 17, 2014) (unpublished);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12, 2012) (unpublished).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
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?