Griffin v. Delta Technical College, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The complaint against Defendants Bruce Thieman, Charles "Frankie" Ryals, and Ralph Fitzgerald is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 06/14/2017. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES DEWAYNE GRIFFIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DELTA TECHNICAL COLLEGE,
et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-02055-SHM-egb

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

Recommendation, dated January 31, 2017 (the “Report”).
9.)

The

Griffin’s

Report
pro

se

recommends
complaint

and

(ECF No.

that

Plaintiff

James

DeWayne

against

Defendants

Bruce

Thieman,

Charles “Frankie” Ryals, and Ralph Fitzgerald (the “Individual
Defendants”)

be

dismissed

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

sua

sponte

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

Griffin has not filed any objections to

the Report, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

L.R.

72.1(g)(2).
For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the
complaint against the Individual Defendants is DISMISSED.
On January 20, 2017, Griffin filed his pro se complaint
against Defendant “Delta Technical College” and the Individual

Defendants, asserting employment discrimination under Title VII
of

the

Civil

Rights

Act

of

1964

(“Title

VII”),

42

U.S.C.

§§ 2000e, et seq.1
On
Report.

January

31,

2017,

the

Magistrate

Judge

entered

the

The Report recommends that Griffin’s complaint against

the Individual Defendants be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),

concluding

that

state a claim against those defendants.

the

complaint

fails

to

The Report explains as

follows:
Griffin brings his complaint under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17.
Title VII grants employees relief against their
employers for certain proscribed employment practices.
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), e-5(b).
The complaint
alleges that Griffin was employed by Delta Technical
College, but the complaint does not indicate in any
way that Griffin was ever employed by Bruce Thieman,
Charles “Frankie” Ryals, or Ralph Fitzgerald. Even if
the court were to speculate that these defendants are
supervisors or fellow employees at Delta Technical
College, which the court cannot infer from the sparse
facts provided, these defendants would not be subject
to liability under Title VII.
See Wathen v. General
Electric Co., 115 F.3d 400, 403–06 (6th Cir. 1997)
(interpreting Title VII to impose no individual
liability on managers and supervisors who do not also
qualify as employers under Title VII); see also Roof
v. Bel Brands USA, Inc., 641 F. App’x 492, 496 (6th
Cir. 2016). In Wathen, the Sixth Circuit found “that
the statute as a whole, the legislative history and
the case law support the conclusion that Congress did
not intend individuals to face liability under the
definition of ‘employer’ it selected for Title VII.”
115 F.3d at 406. The allegations in the complaint do
1

Delta Technical College has since made an appearance and has
identified itself as Midwest Technical Institute Inc., d/b/a
Delta Technical College LLC. (See ECF No. 15.)
2

not plausibly demonstrate that any of the three
individuals named in the complaint is subject to
liability under Title VII.
The undersigned therefore
recommends that Griffin’s Title VII claim be dismissed
as against Bruce Thieman, Charles “Frankie” Ryals, and
Ralph Fitzgerald for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.
(ECF No. 9 at 5-6.)
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of districtcourt duties to magistrate judges.
237

F.3d

States,

598,
490

602

U.S.

(6th
858,

Cir.

See United States v. Curtis,

2001)

869-70

(citing

(1989));

see

Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

Gomez

v.

also

United

Baker

v.

For dispositive

matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected

to.”

636(b)(1).
accept,
findings

See

R.

Civ.

P.

72(b)(3);

28

U.S.C.

§

After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to

reject,
or

Fed.

or

modify

the

recommendations.

magistrate
28

U.S.C.

judge’s

proposed

§ 636(b)(1).

The

district court is not required to review -- under a de novo or
any

other

standard

--

those

aspects

of

recommendation to which no objection is made.
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

the

report

and

Thomas v. Arn,

The district court should adopt the

magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific
objection is filed.

Id. at 151.

3

Griffin has not objected to the Report.

On that ground,

adoption of the Report’s recommendations is warranted.

See Arn,

474 U.S. at 150-51.
For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the
complaint against the Individual Defendants is DISMISSED.

So ordered this 14th day of June, 2017.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr._____
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4