Hines v. D&S Residential Services et al
Filing
11
ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE PROCESS ON REMAINING RETALIATION CLAIM. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 7/20/15. (Breen, J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVIS HINES,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 14-1266
D&S RESIDENTIAL SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DISMISSING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS
AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE PROCESS ON REMAINING RETALIATION CLAIM
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Plaintiff, Davis Hines, initially brought this pro se action on October 7, 2014 alleging
retaliation and discrimination based on race and gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e, et seq. (D.E. 1.) On May 7, 2015, United States
Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to cure certain
insufficiencies therein. (D.E. 6.) An amended pleading was filed on June 5, 2015. (D.E. 9.) In a
report and recommendation entered June 29, 2015, the magistrate judge recommended that Hines'
discrimination claims be dismissed and the retaliation claim be permitted to proceed. (D.E. 10.)
Judge Bryant also recommended that service be issued.
As no objections have been filed and upon review of the record, the report and
recommendation is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's discrimination
claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue process for the Defendants named in the
amended complaint and to deliver such process to the United States Marshal for service.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July 2015.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?