Owens v. Shelby County Schools Board of Education et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING DE 7 Report and Recommendations and ordering case DISMISSED sua sponte signed by Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. on 8/31/18. (Fowlkes, John)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
EMERSON OWENS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
No. 2:18-cv-2345-JTF-dkv
)
)
SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS BOARD
)
OF EDUCATION, CECILIA BARNES, and
)
DEBBIE WALKER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER OF SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
______________________________________________________________________________
On April 20, 2018, Plaintiff Emerson Owens, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against
the Defendants for discrimination in employment in which he alleged civil rights violations
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Along with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, the matter was
referred to the Chief United States Magistrate Judge for management of all pretrial matters. On
July 18, 2018, the Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
dismissal sua sponte of all of Owens’ claims. (ECF No. 15.) To date, no objections have been
filed to the report and recommendation. See L.R. 72.1(g)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As such, the Court finds that the Chief Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation should be Adopted and the case sua sponte Dismissed.

1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts
by permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates.” See e.g. Baker v.
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 311, 2003 WL 21321184 (6th Cir. 2003) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A
United States District Judge may refer certain dispositive pretrial motions to a United States
Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C); Brown v. Wesley Quaker Maid, Inc., 771 F.2d 952, 957 (6th
Cir. 1985). The District Court Judge may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the
Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. A district judge should adopt the
findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed. Brown, 47
F.Supp.3d at 674. While most actions by a Magistrate Judge are reviewed for clear error,
dispositive recommendations to the District Court Judge are reviewed de novo. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 141-42 (1985).
III. FACTUAL HISTORY
The Chief Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation offers proposed findings of
fact to which neither party has objected. (ECF No. 7, pp. 2-4). After several conferences and
written reprimands for working too slowly, eating and leaving containers in his work area and for
failure to follow instructions and the rules and regulations of the agency, Owens was terminated
from his employment with Shelby County Schools on or about March 5, 2017. The disciplinary
forms show Plaintiff’s refusal to acknowledge these measures with his signature. (ECF Nos. 1, ¶
IV. & 1-1, 1-3.) Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff includes a document concerning the ADA
and seems to suggest that because of his illnesses, he was terminated. Because the parties have
2

not objected to the Chief Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact, the Court fully adopts the
proposed findings of fact in this case.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Chief Magistrate Judge conducted an extensive analysis of this case in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Construing the complaint liberally in favor of Plaintiff, the Chief
Magistrate Judge examined whether the matter should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) because: (1) the official capacity claims against SCSBE employees, Shelby County
Schools Manager Cecelia Barnes and Interim Manager Debbie Walker, construed as claims
against SCSBE, are not viable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) the complaint fails to establish
any violations of Owens’s procedural due process rights; (3) the § 1983 claims are barred by the
statute of limitations; (4) the § 1983 and ADA claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata; 1
(5) the complaint fails to allege a prima facie elements for discrimination under the ADA; (6)
individual liability is prohibited under Title VII and the ADA for co-workers and supervisory
individuals; and finally, (7) the ADA claims should be dismissed for Owens’s failure to exhaust
the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 7, 5-21.)

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file any

objections to the report and recommendations.
Upon de novo review of the report and recommendations, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim against the Defendants Barnes and Walker, in their individual
capacities, and against SCSBE for the official capacity claims raised against these employees
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Searcy v. City of Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) and
Tennial v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-2277-JTF-tmp, 2015 WL 13022010, at *3
(W.D. Tenn. Nov. 12, 2015) (citing Hiler v. Brown, 177 F.3d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 1999)). The
1

See Emerson Owens v. Cecilia Barnes, Case No. 2:17-cv-02596-JTF-dkv (W.D. Tenn. 2017)

3

Chief Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Owens’s conclusory allegations did not
establish a viable procedural due process claim or a denial of a protected property interest in
continued employment with the SCSBE. See Curby v. Archon, 216 F.3d 549, 553 (6th Cir.
2000). The Magistrate Judge also correctly concluded that Owens’s had not sufficiently alleged
the elements of an ADA discrimination claim nor had he administratively exhausted the claim as
required. Furthermore, the §1983 claim is barred by res judicata and the applicable statute of
limitations. As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to submit any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and the time has
expired.
CONCLUSION
Upon a de novo review of the pro se complaint, the associated documents, and the Chief
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the Chief Magistrate Judge’s
report and recommendation in its entirety and orders the case dismissed sua sponte.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 31st day of August, 2018.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4