Sanford v. Carter et al

Filing 3

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint filed by Dorian Sanford. It is RECOMMENDED that the claims against all defendants except defendant Ashton B. Carter be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. The MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ( ECF 1 ) is GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 5/11/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 4/24/2015. (pes)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DORIAN SANFORD,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:15-cv-1424
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King

vs.

ASHTON B. CARTER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. §1915(a), ECF 1, is GRANTED.
It is ORDERED that the plaintiff be allowed to prosecute this
action without prepayment of fees or costs and that judicial officers
who render service in this action shall do so as if the costs had been
prepaid.
Federal law requires that the Court perform an initial screen of
the Complaint and dismiss any claim that, inter alia, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Having performed that initial screen, the Court concludes that the
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against all defendants
except defendant Carter, the Secretary of Defense. It is therefore
recommended that all defendants except defendant Carter be dismissed.
Plaintiff, a federal employee, alleges that she has been
subjected to sex and race discrimination, sexual harassment, a hostile

1

work environment and retaliation. The Complaint names as defendants
Ashton B. Carter, the Secretary of Defense, and seven (7) other
individuals, but refers only to plaintiff’s supervisor and co-workers
without naming those persons.
As a federal employee, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for her
claims of employment discrimination is found in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-16. Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 835
(1976); Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2002). The
only proper defendant in a claim under § 2000e-16 is the head of the
employing department, agency or unit, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), in this
case the Secretary of Defense. See also Mulhall, 287 F.3d at 550. The
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the other
individual defendants.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the claims against all
defendants except defendant Ashton B. Carter be dismissed for failure
to state a claim for relief.
It is ORDERED that the United States Marshal make service of
process by certified mail on defendant Ashton B. Carter, the Attorney
General of the United States and the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Ohio. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i).
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.

28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court.

See, e.g., Pfahler v.

Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that
“failure

to

constituted

object
a

waiver

to

the

of

[the

magistrate
defendant’s]

judge’s

recommendations

ability

to

appeal

the

district court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976,
984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant waived appeal of district
court’s

denial

magistrate

of

judge’s

pretrial
report

motion
and

by

failing

to

recommendation).

timely
Even

object

when

to

timely

objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those
objections is waived.

Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir.

2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which
fails

to

specify

the

issues

of

contention,

does

not

suffice

preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

s/

Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
April 24, 2015

3

to