Gywn v. Pressen et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Favor and Reward (Docket No. 9), to which Defendants have filed a Response (Docket No. 12). To the extent this document is a Motion, it is DENIED, but the court has considered its al legations as part of Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the required elements for a Title VII race discrimination claim.4 Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is approved, Defendants' Motion for Ju dgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/3/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

JAMES GWYN,
Plaintiff
v.
JOSEPH PRESSON (“Mr. Lee”) and
RICOH AMERICAS CORP.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-01217
JUDGE TRAUGER

ORDER
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Favor and Reward (Docket No. 9), to
which Defendants have filed a Response (Docket No. 12). Although this Motion asks the court to
find in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, Plaintiff is actually adding information and prayers
for relief to his Complaint. To the extent this document is a Motion, it is DENIED, but the court has
considered its allegations as part of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Also pending before the court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(Docket No. 17), Objections filed by Plaintiff (Docket No. 18), and a Response to those Objections
filed by Defendants (Docket No. 19). When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation
regarding a dispositive pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the
report and recommendation to which a proper objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, review further evidence,
or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the
court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, the Response, and the

file. For the reasons that follow, the Objections of the Plaintiff are overruled, and the Report and
Recommendation is adopted and approved.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, as amended, alleges that he was working in a “temp” job for
Defendant Ricoh Americas Corp.1 when his manager, “Mr. Lee,”2 disrespected Plaintiff, got upset
with Plaintiff, pointed his finger in Plaintiff’s face, and fired Plaintiff, all because of Plaintiff’s race.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, to establish a claim for racial discrimination under Title VII (42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2), a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was
qualified for his job and performed it satisfactorily; (3) despite his qualifications and performance,
he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was replaced by a person outside the protected
class or treated less favorably than a similarly-situated individual outside the protected class. See
Vincent v. Brewer Co., 514 F.3d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 2007).
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the second, third and fourth
elements of his claim. In response, Plaintiff has not specifically objected to a particular part of the
Magistrate Judge’s opinion, but, rather he objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion. In his
Objections, Plaintiff has simply stated, in a conclusory fashion, that he was qualified for the job and
performed it satisfactorily; that another employee (Robert), who is white, was not treated the same
as Plaintiff; and that he suffered an adverse employment action by being fired.3

1

Defendants assert that the proper name of the corporation is Richo USA, Inc.

2

Defendants also assert that the individual Defendant’s proper name is Joseph Lee

Presson.
3

The court notes that Plaintiff has established that he suffered an adverse employment
action, in that he was fired.
2

In addition to the lack of factual support for his sparse allegations, as found by the
Magistrate Judge, the court notes that Plaintiff has failed to show that Robert was “similarlysituated” to Plaintiff, as required to demonstrate the fourth element of a race discrimination claim.
Plaintiff’s “Addendum” to the Complaint identifies Robert as a full-time employee, not a “temp.”
Docket No. 10-1 at 3. Plaintiff has alleged nothing about Robert’s job requirements, length of
service or qualifications to show that he was similarly-situated.
Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the required elements for a Title VII race
discrimination claim.4 Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is approved, Defendants’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED, and this action is
DISMISSED.
This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Plaintiff has not responded to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the
individual Defendant, Mr. Presson, must be dismissed because the law does not permit liability
against individuals under Title VII. Title VII does not provide a cause of action against individuals.
Akers v. Alvey, 338 F.3d 491, 500 (6th Cir. 2003).
3