Eady v. Ascend Transportation

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REFUTE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND ENSURE FAIR RESOLUTION (ECF NO. 30)ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUEST RECUSAL AND CHALLENGE DISCRIMINATION AND MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (ECF NO. 35) ORDER STRIKING ALLEGATIONS FROM THE RECORD ORDER ON HEARING. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/29/2024. (gkp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________________
RONALD DWIGHT EADY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
No. 1:23-cv-01131-STA-jay
)
ASCEND TRANSPORTATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REFUTE FALSE ALLEGATIONS
AND ENSURE FAIR RESOLUTION (ECF NO. 30)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REQUEST RECUSAL AND
CHALLENGE DISCRIMINATION AND MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (ECF NO. 35)
ORDER STRIKING ALLEGATIONS FROM THE RECORD
ORDER ON HEARING
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court are the following Motions filed by the parties: Plaintiff Ronald Dwight
Eady’s Motion to Refute False Allegations and Ensure a Fair Resolution (ECF No. 30) filed on
February 16, 2024; Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Recusal and Challenge Discrimination and
Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 35) filed April 15, 2024; and Defendant Ascend
Transportation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ECF No. 37) filed on April 16, 2024.
The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 40)
addressed to the Motion on June 20, 2024.

The Magistrate Judge has made several

recommendations: (1) that the Court grant Defendant Ascend Transportation’s Motion to Dismiss,
(2) that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motions, and (3) that the Court dismiss the remainder of
Plaintiff’s case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s continuing allegations of judicial misconduct and bias.

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the report (ECF No. 41), though without actually addressing
objections to the sanctions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. So, on July 18, 2024, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to sanction Plaintiff and dismiss his case. Plaintiff filed his show cause response
on August 7, 2024.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions. Based on Plaintiff’s show cause response, the
Court does not find that the sanction of dismissal is warranted at this time.
BACKGROUND
The Court has set out the full procedural history of this civil action in previous orders and
need not recite it in full here. See Order Adopting Mag. J.’s Rep. & Recommendation Oct. 11,
2023 (ECF No. 19); Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Re-Evaluate Rep. & Recommendation Jan. 3,
2024 (ECF No. 27). Briefly, on July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Pro Se Complaint alleging claims
against his former employer Ascend Transportation for the violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
On August 29, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (ECF No.
15) on the Pro Se Complaint. The Magistrate Judge construed the Pro Se Complaint to allege the
following claims: Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation and disability discrimination
under the ADA. The Magistrate Judge found that the Pro Se Complaint stated plausible Title VII
claims and recommended that the Court allow these claims to proceed. However, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that the Pro Se Complaint failed to allege that Plaintiff had properly exhausted

2

his disability discrimination claim under the ADA. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended
the dismissal of the ADA claim without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
In an order entered October 11, 2023, the Court addressed Plaintiff’s objections to the
report and recommendation and concluded that the Magistrate Judge had correctly held that neither
the Pro Se Complaint nor the right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC and attached to Plaintiff’s
pleading showed the scope of his charge of discrimination or the extent of the administrative
investigation undertaken by the agency. Without the charge itself or at least some factual
allegation in the Pro Se Complaint to show that Plaintiff had complained of disability
discrimination at the administrative level, Plaintiff could not proceed with his ADA disability
claim as part of his lawsuit. Therefore, the ADA claim was subject to dismissal but without
prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to raise the claim at a later time.
Rather than dismiss the ADA claim outright, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his
pleadings to allege how he had exhausted his ADA claim with the EEOC, either by including a
copy of his charge of discrimination or by alleging facts about whether he alleged disability
discrimination in his charge of discrimination with the EEOC, or both. The Court explained that
any new allegations concerning the exhaustion of the ADA claim would still need to undergo the
screening process. The Court gave Plaintiff 21 days from the service of its order in which to file
his amended pleading. In the interim, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s ADA disability claim without
prejudice to his right to bring the claim in his amended pleading.
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as the Court directed. In fact, in the more than
ten months since the Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended pleading, Plaintiff has
never done so. Plaintiff first responded by filing a series of motions, largely alleging judicial
3

misconduct without any evidentiary support. The Court construed one of Plaintiff’s motions as a
request for an extension of time to amend his pleadings in response to the Court’s October 11,
2023 order. In an order entered on January 3, 2024, the Court granted that request and gave
Plaintiff until January 19, 2024, to amend his pleadings in support of the ADA claim.
The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s claims of judicial misconduct in the strongest possible
terms, admonishing Plaintiff about raising unsubstantiated charges of judicial bias, discrimination,
and misconduct: “The charge against the Magistrate Judge is entirely unfounded. Plaintiff is
strongly cautioned that the Court will not tolerate unsupported allegations of judicial misconduct
over the handling of Plaintiff’s case in the future.” Order Denying Pl.’s Mots. to Address Judicial
Misconduct, Request Recusal, & Challenge Discrimination 13, Jan. 3, 2024 (ECF No. 27). The
Court warned Plaintiff about the possibility of Rule 11 sanctions if he persisted in making
“meritless allegations of bias or discrimination” against the Magistrate Judge. Id. (“Should
Plaintiff continue to raise meritless allegations of bias or discrimination, the Court cautions
Plaintiff that it will consider imposing sanctions on Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11.”).
On January 18, 2024, the day before the extended deadline set by the Court for Plaintiff to
amend his complaint, Plaintiff requested another extension. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request
and gave him until February 20, 2024. Rather than file an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Refute False Allegations and Ensure a Fair Resolution (ECF No. 30) on February 16,
2024. Plaintiff argued in this Motion that Defendant through its employees had made false
accusations about Plaintiff’s work-related conduct. The Magistrate Judge noted in his recent report

4

and recommendation (ECF No. 40) that the only references in the Motion to the ADA were the
following:
•

“[Plaintiff is] seeking redress for the defendant’s attempts to falsely accuse and discredit
the Plaintiff, including the protection and assertion of the Plaintiff’s rights under the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA),” Mot. to Refute 1;

•

“The Defendant violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and,
ultimately, wrongfully terminating the Plaintiff’s employment,” id. at 2; and

•

“During an EEOC investigation, [Plaintiff’s attorney] falsely denied speaking to
[Defendant’s attorney], contradicted by Plaintiff’s call log. [The] EEOC investigator []
conveyed [Plaintiff’s attorney’s] denial, raising concerns.” id.

Plaintiff made no other statements concerning his ADA claim or his efforts to exhaust his ADA
claim with the EEOC. Nor did Plaintiff attach his administrative charge of discrimination as an
exhibit to his Motion. Defendant filed a response in opposition to the Motion. As part of his
report, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Court deny the Motion for failure to request
any relief with particularity or to attach a certificate of consultation.
On March 15, 2024, several weeks after the deadline to file an amended pleading had
passed, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for extension of time to amend his pleadings. Plaintiff
requested 30 days more to prepare and file the amended pleading addressed to his ADA claim. In
an order entered March 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for more time. The Court
set April 15, 2024, as the new deadline for Plaintiff’s amended complaint and cautioned Plaintiff
“that the Court is not inclined to grant Plaintiff any further extensions of the deadline to amend
that was originally set in October 2023. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading by April 15,
2024, Plaintiff’s case will proceed on the merits of his Title VII claims.” Order Granting Third
Mot. for Ext., Mar. 18, 2024 (ECF No. 34).
5

Rather than file the amended complaint by April 15, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to
Request Recusal and Challenge Discrimination as well as a Motion to Change Venue (both
docketed as a single entry, ECF No. 35). As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted in his report,
Plaintiff stated in these Motions that he was “seeking redress for the defendant’s attempts to falsely
accuse and discredit [him], including the protection and assertion of [his] rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” Plaintiff’s Motion then summarized the relief he sought
in his Complaint and asked the Court to undertake a thorough review of Defendant’s alleged false
accusations against him, and to protect him from further retaliation, sanctions, or jail time arising
from Defendant’s accusations.

Plaintiff’s Moton to Request Recusal and Challenge

Discrimination went on to restate some of the same allegations about judicial misconduct involving
the Magistrate Judge.
In his Motion for Change of Venue, Plaintiff requested a change of venue, this time because
of “the alleged discrimination and bias of the presiding judge.” Plaintiff alleged that another
judicial officer, who is not the presiding judge in this matter or even a member of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, has a drug problem and therefore could not
“adjudicate the present case fairly.” Therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to a change of venue.
Defendant responded in opposition to each of Plaintiff’s Motions, and the Magistrate Judge has
once again recommended that the Court deny the requests.
On April 16, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Court should
dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant noted
that Plaintiff had never complied with the Court’s previous order to amend his pleadings or
produce a copy of his administrative charge of discrimination. Without Plaintiff furnishing some
6

proof that he had exhausted his ADA claim, the Court should dismiss the claim. Plaintiff never
responded to the Motion to Dismiss. As part of his report and recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge has recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA
claim with prejudice.
The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining
Title VII claims as a sanction for Plaintiff’s baseless allegations of judicial misconduct. Although
Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and recommendation, Plaintiff did not address the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s accusations
against the Court. Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should
not impose sanctions. As part of its order, the Court gave Plaintiff notice that the Court was
considering sanctions against Plaintiff, including the dismissal of his case, based on the ongoing
submission of papers to the Court, containing unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias or
misconduct. The Court had first warned Plaintiff about filing these kinds of serious allegations
back in January 2024. The Court noted that in the months since the Court had issued that warning,
Plaintiff had continued to file papers raising some of the same allegations about the Magistrate
Judge’s handling of his case.
•

In a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 28) filed January 18, 2024,
Plaintiff once more referred to the possibility of the Magistrate Judge
recusing himself and “instances of attorney misconduct in official records.”
In its order granting the motion for extension, the Court reiterated “that
should Plaintiff continue to raise meritless allegations of bias or
discrimination, the Court will consider imposing sanctions on Plaintiff
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Order Granting Mot. for
Ext. 2, Jan. 19, 2024 (ECF No. 29).

•

In the motion to request recusal and challenge discrimination (ECF No. 35)
filed April 15, 2024, Plaintiff again alleged judicial misconduct. According
to Plaintiff, “Magistrate Judge York’s actions have compromised the
7

fairness of the proceedings.” Plaintiff requested that the Court investigate
the claims and order the recusal of the Magistrate Judge.
•

In the motion for change of venue (ECF No. 35), also filed April 15, 2024,
Plaintiff requested a change of venue because of “the alleged discrimination
and bias of the presiding judge.” Here, Plaintiff alleged that another judicial
officer, who is not the presiding judge in this matter or a member of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, has a
drug problem and therefore cannot “adjudicate the present case fairly.”

•

In his Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 41), Plaintiff restated his claim that “Magistrate Judge York’s
actions have compromised the fairness of the proceedings.” The brief also
stated that Magistrate Judge York “exhibited bias and engaged in judicial
misconduct by threatening sanctions and demonstrating a lack of
impartiality.” Plaintiff went on to request that Magistrate Judge York
recuse himself.

•

Plaintiff’s Response to the Report and Recommendation also contains the
following allegation: “Judge York disliked the Plaintiff so much, he
commented that he did not see how a minority came up with the money to
file a complaint in Federal district court. By treating Plaintiff differently
than others [sic] prevented him from getting a fair and impartial trial. Not
that Judge York wanted Plaintiff to get one anyway.” Resp. to Rep. &
Recommendation 4 (ECF No. 41, Page ID 326). Plaintiff did not explain
when and where such a comment was made. As far as the record shows,
Plaintiff has never appeared before the Magistrate Judge.

At no time had Plaintiff ever produced any evidence to support any of the allegations made in these
papers or heeded the Court’s warning about persisting in this pattern of making spurious claims
about a judicial officer.
The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not sanction
him for making statements in his filings with the Court which lacked any evidentiary support and
baselessly impugned the integrity of the proceedings. The Court directed Plaintiff to explain the
basis for his claims and introduce admissible evidence to substantiate his description of the
handling of his case.
8

Plaintiff has filed a written show cause response. Plaintiff begins by apologizing to the
Court for his accusations and admits “it was wrong of me.” Plaintiff explains that after having
suffered a stroke, he takes a number of medications, including prescription drugs for the treatment
of heart disease and diabetes. The effect of his drug regimen “produced a paranoid effect in”
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also attached a number of exhibits to his show cause response: an unverified
document titled “Supporting Statement as Extension to the Complaint for Employment
Discrimination;” a charge of discrimination dated October 1, 2022; and a series of medical records.
The charge of discrimination (Page ID 366-67) was prepared on the official EEOC form.
In the section of the form indicating the basis for the charge, the boxes beside the words “race,”
“color,” “retaliation,” and “disability” are all checked. While the boxes beside the words “race,”
“color,” and “retaliation” contain a typewritten “X,” the mark in the box beside the word
“disability” appears to contain a handwritten checkmark. The section for the dates of the alleged
discrimination states, “Aug. 9, 2021 to Oct 1, 2022” and the box beside the words “continuing
action” is checked. The narrative portion of the charge stated in relevant part that Plaintiff suffered
a work-related back injury on April 1, 2022. Plaintiff claimed he was forced to work in unsafe
conditions and slipped and fell on a jobsite. Plaintiff’s back injury from the fall caused him to
miss several weeks of work, for which he was denied all of the workers compensation he was owed
by law. The charge of discrimination concluded by alleging that Defendant had violated “the
Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act of 2008” and Title VII.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a district court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection
9

is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After reviewing the evidence, the Court “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made” by the United States
Magistrate Judge. Id. However, the Court need not review any portion of the recommendation to
which Plaintiff did not specifically object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). The
Court may adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection
is filed. Id.
ANALYSIS
The Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to raise any specific objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s Motions. Each of Plaintiff’s requests suffers from
a number of defects, all identified and discussed by the Magistrate Judge in his report and
recommendation. Plaintiff has filed objections to the report and recommendation but none
addressed to why the Court should not adopt the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. Therefore, this
aspect of the report is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Refute False Allegations and Ensure
a Fair Resolution (ECF No. 30), Motion to Request Recusal and Challenge Discrimination (ECF
No. 35), Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 35) are DENIED.
As for the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to sanction Plaintiff, the Court declines to
impose sanctions, including the sanction of dismissal, at this time. Rule 11(c)(1) grants the Court
discretion to “impose an appropriate sanction” on an attorney or party “[i]f, after notice and a
reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1).

Plaintiff’s long-running course of scurrilous accusations is now well

documented in this case. The Court continues to find that Plaintiff’s claims of misconduct or
discrimination are totally unsubstantiated. This is enough to establish a violation of Rule 11. Fed.
10

R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (governing representations to the Court and stating that an unrepresented person
certifies that all factual allegations submitted to a court “have evidentiary support . . . to the best
of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances”). In light of the prior warnings from the Court, including the Court’s show cause
order, Plaintiff’s conduct is clearly sanctionable.
Nevertheless, as part of his show cause response, Plaintiff has conceded that his claims
have no merit. Plaintiff has extended an apology to the Court for his actions and explained that he
is suffering from side effects Plaintiff attributes to his prescription medications, effects which
include feelings of anxiety. While Plaintiff’s show cause response does not explicitly withdraw
his previous statements to the Court, the Court will treat it as a withdrawal of the comments. The
Court has already struck some of the allegations from Plaintiff’s earlier motions. Order Granting
in Part Def.’s Mot. to Strike 13, Jan. 3, 2024 (ECF No. 27). The Court now strikes the subsequent
statements offered by Plaintiff to allege judicial misconduct and bias from the record.
Plaintiff’s response stops short of assuring the Court that he will not return to the meritless
allegations like those in his previous motions and raise them once more in future filings. The
Court finds that Plaintiff’s remorse for the statements suffices to avoid the sanction of dismissal.
Under the circumstances, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s case. The Court cautions Plaintiff
that should he file any additional paper with the Court containing a baseless accusation against the
Court or the Magistrate Judge, the Court will impose sanctions, up to and including dismissal of
the case, without further notice.
This just leaves Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant argues, and the Magistrate
Judge has concluded, that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim because Plaintiff cannot
11

show that he exhausted his administrative remedies by raising the claim in an EEOC charge of
discrimination. During the initial screening phase of the case, the Court actually dismissed
Plaintiff’s ADA claim and then granted Plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings and/or produce his
charge of discrimination. Strictly speaking, the Court has already dismissed Plaintiff’s ADA claim
but did so without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile the claim in an amended pleading.
Defendant now seeks a ruling to dismiss the ADA claim with prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure
to file the amended pleading within the deadline set by the Court.
In fact, the Court has set a number of deadlines for Plaintiff’s amended complaint and a
number of extensions have been granted to Plaintiff. The Court set an initial deadline for Plaintiff
to file the amendment in November 2023. After several extensions of time, the Court gave Plaintiff
“one final opportunity” to comply and pushed the pleading deadline to April 15, 2024. The Court
cautioned Plaintiff that it was “not inclined to grant Plaintiff any further extensions of the deadline
to amend” and that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading by April 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s
case will proceed on the merits of his Title VII claims.” 1 The record is clear: Plaintiff has still not
amended his pleading to comply with the order the Court originally entered on October 11, 2023,
more than ten months ago, and Plaintiff did not request any further extension of his deadline to do
so after April 15, 2024.
At the same time, Plaintiff has now submitted, as part of his show cause response, a copy
of an administrative charge of discrimination dated October 1, 2022. Plaintiff’s charge alleged
that Defendant violated the ADA. The charge describes an on-the-job injury suffered by Plaintiff

1

The Magistrate Judge has correctly reasoned that even if Plaintiff returned to the EEOC
and attempted to exhaust the ADA claim administratively, any further judicial action on the claim
would be time barred.
12

and the fact that the injury left Plaintiff unable to work. Plaintiff alleges in the charge that
Defendant’s actions after Plaintiff’s injury constitute a violation of the ADA. Plaintiff has offered
no explanation about why he did not submit a copy of the charge sooner, nor has he argued why
the Court should once more extend the April 15, 2024, deadline for Plaintiff to amend his pleading.
The Court finds good cause to hold a hearing to consider whether Plaintiff should be
allowed to submit the charge of discrimination so far outside of the deadline set by the Court.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motions.
The Court declines to adopt the recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s case as a sanction for his
baseless allegations. The Court strikes Plaintiff’s allegations from the record and strongly cautions
Plaintiff that should he file any additional paper with the Court containing a baseless accusation
against the Court or the Magistrate Judge, the Court will impose sanctions, up to and including
dismissal of the case, without further notice.
The hearing to determine whether Plaintiff should be allowed to submit the charge of
discrimination to plead his ADA claim will be set by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 29, 2024.

13