Roan v. Sonic Restaurants, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: (1) The R & R (Docket No. 7 7 ) is hereby ACCEPTED AND APPROVED; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61 ) is hereby GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 2/19/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
PATRICK ROAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SONIC RESTAURANTS, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-00982
Judge Sharp

ORDER
In this action, Plaintiff Patrick Roan alleges that Defendant Sonic Restaurants, Inc. (“Sonic”)
discriminated against him because he is a “Black American,” in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e.q. He also claims that Sonic violated the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), by reducing
his work hours and making him ineligible for a bonus.
Magistrate Judge Knowles has entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket
No. 77), recommending that Sonic’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61) be granted.
He does so for both procedural and substantive reasons.
Procedurally, Plaintiff wholly failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.01 because his response includes numerous exhibits, the
majority of which are handwritten notes, and none of which were verified or otherwise presented
in a form admissible at trial. Moreover, Plaintiff made no effort to respond to the specific facts
identified in Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts.
Substantively, Magistrate Judge Knowles reasons that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim fails
because he has proffered no admissible evidence suggesting his “color” had anything to do with his

1

reduced hours and consequential lack of bonus. Moreover, Sonic articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision (the increase in the federal minimum wage and decline in
sales volume during the recession, coupled with the scheduling conflicts presented by Plaintiff’s
inability to work certain critical days and times), and Plaintiff failed to present evidence to suggest
that those reasons were pretextual. As for his EPA claim, that fails because Plaintiff has not shown
he was paid differently than other Associate Managers on account of his gender.
Having considered the record and undertaken the de novo review required by Rule 72(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court agrees with the recommended disposition. In doing
so, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s “Response to Report and Recommendation” (Docket No. 79)
and his “Respon[se] to Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Objections,” (Docket No. 82). Both
are procedurally defective, and neither support the conclusion that Magistrate Judge Knowles erred
in recommending that this action be dismissed.
The first “Response” begins by stating that Plaintiff has “more facts and evidence for the
courts,” (Docket No. 79 at 1), but the time for presenting facts, or at least challenging the facts set
forth by Sonic, has long since past. Regardless, and not withstanding that Magistrate Judge Knowles
noted the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s filings in response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, the exact same deficiencies appear in the Response – the handwritten notes and purported
exhibits are not verified.
The exhibits to the second “Response” are also not verified, although a handwritten letter
is, and includes the statement “everything I sent has to true [sic] and under oath.” (Docket No. 82
at 4). Obviously, that general assertion, verified or otherwise, does not suffice to make the entirety
of what has been filed to date admissible or authentic. Regardless, it comes too late. Additionally,

2

the letter, addressed to Magistrate Judge Knowles, is full of conclusory statements and does not
come close to meeting the requirement that a party “file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
While the Court recognizes that pro se filings must be read indulgently, Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “those who proceed without counsel must still comply with the procedural
rules that govern civil cases.” Frame v. Superior Fireplace, 74 F. App’x 601, 603 (6th Cir. 2003)
(citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993)). Plaintiff has wholly failed to comply with
the rules governing summary judgment. And, even considering the unverified exhibits, he has failed
to raise a genuine issue that he was treated differently because of his “color,” or that he was paid less
because of his gender.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 77) is hereby ACCEPTED AND APPROVED;
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61) is hereby GRANTED; and
(3) Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter an appropriate judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3