Johnson v. Scott Clark Honda et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 49 Pro Se MOTION for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/24/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-485-RJC-DCK
RAYMOND A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT CLARK HONDA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se Plaintiff Raymond A. Johnson’s
“Motion For Sanctions” (Document No. 49) filed April 14, 2014. This motion has been referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is now ripe for
disposition. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant EEOC and Danielle J.
Hayot, counsel for Defendant EEOC. (Document No. 49). Plaintiff appears to argue that
sanctions are appropriate because Ms. Hayot filed the “EEOC’s Response To Plaintiff’s
Objections…” (Document No. 48) on April 9, 2014, after the filing deadline of March 30, 2014,
set by the Court in its “Order” (Document No. 44) of March 11, 2014. Id.
The undersigned notes the docket sheet indicates that responses to Plaintiff’s objections
were due by April 10, 2014, thus allowing the typical time period provided by 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See (Document No. 42, p.19;

Document No. 45). The undersigned further notes that the other Defendants filed their responses
on Monday, March 31, 2014. See (Document Nos. 46, 47).
Plaintiff’s current motion suggests that he suffered mental and emotional stress, as well
as financial losses, based on Defendant EEOC’s delayed response.

(Document No. 49).

However, Plaintiff offers no evidence of any damages, nor does he cite any authority supporting
sanctions under these circumstances. Id. Plaintiff’s instant motion simply fails to show how he
suffered any prejudice because a Defendant filed a response to an objection within the normal
time period as noted on the docket, but several days later than the Court had ordered in this case.
If there was any inconvenience, it was to the Court -- not Plaintiff. It is noteworthy that the
Court allowed Plaintiff an extra Seven (7) days to file his objections, but shortened Defendants’
typical time to file a response to such objections. See (Document No. 44).
Judge Conrad has previously admonished Plaintiff for filing frivolous motions, and
warned that the further filing of frivolous documents in this Court may lead to sanctions against
Plaintiff. (Document No. 18). The undersigned finds that the instant “Motion For Sanctions”
(Document No. 49) violates Judge Conrad’s warning. The undersigned will decline to issue
sanctions against the pro se Plaintiff at this time, but the Court will take the issue under
advisement.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff Raymond A. Johnson’s “Motion For
Sanctions” (Document No. 49) is DENIED.

Signed: April 24, 2014