STODULSKI v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. 7, 28 & 29) ARE GRANTED AND THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FRANK CASTRO AND MICHAEL SJOERDSMA ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ANY CLAIMS FOR D ISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEDLINE OCCURING PRIOR TO 1/23/08 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, ETC. THE PLAINTIFF MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORRE 12/28/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 11/28/11. 11/29/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF, E-MAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD W. STODULSKI, JR.
v.
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 10-2870

ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2011, upon
consideration of the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos.
7, 28, & 29), the plaintiff’s oppositions thereto, after an onthe-record hearing, and for the reasons stated in a memorandum
bearing today’s date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants’
motions are GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED in its
entirety.
All claims against the defendants Frank Castro and
Michael Sjoerdsma are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Any claims for

discrimination against Medline occurring prior to January 23,
2008 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
All claims for discrimination arising out of the
plaintiff’s proposed transfer in March 2008 are DISMISSED without
prejudice.

The plaintiff may file an amended complaint that

addresses the deficiencies identified in the Court’s memorandum
opinion.

Specifically, the plaintiff is granted leave to file an

amended complaint that (a) identifies the adverse employment
action he suffered in March 2008 as a result of his proposed

transfer, and (b) alleges facts demonstrating that such actions
were taken as a result of his disability.
The plaintiff is reminded that the Court is without
jurisdiction to address any claims for retaliation for filing a
charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, as any such claims must be presented in a separate
action.

See Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 304, 398-

99 (3d Cir. 1976) (noting that “the parameters of the civil
action in the district court are defined by the scope of the EEOC
investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the
charge of discrimination”).
The plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or
before December 28, 2011.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin
MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

-2-