Duplantier v. Potter
ORDER adopting 74 Report and Recommendation. Deft's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The reference to the magistrate judge is vacated. All pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 12/15/10. (tkd, ) Modified on 12/16/2010 (tkd, ).
Duplantier v. Potter
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
HENRY L. DUPLANTIER V. JOHN E. POTTER Post Master General
§ § § § § §
CONSOLIDATED CASES HENRY L. DUPLANTIER V. JOHN E. POTTER Post Master General § § § § § §
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The court referred this matter to the Honorable Earl S. Hines, United State magistrate judge, for pretrial proceedings pursuant to General Order 05-07. The court has received and considered the report of the United State magistrate judge, who recommends that the court grant in full defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed timely objections which summarize his previously asserted factual allegations and request that the court consider new allegations in an EEO complaint filed approximately six months after the instant claim was commenced. This requires a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Having considered the magistrate judge's report and conducted a de novo review of plaintiff's objections, the court finds that plaintiff's objections lack merit. First, plaintiff's objections fail to identify any specific relevant fact that the magistrate judge failed to take into account. Plaintiff simply requests that the court consider his newest EEO complaint without providing a copy of the complaint or specifying the actions complained of therein. Second, plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies regarding this newest EEO complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16c; Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 833-34, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Randel v. United States Dep't of Navy, 157 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Brown, 425 U.S. at 832, and holding that "as a precondition to filing suit in federal court, Title VII specifically requires a federal employee claiming discrimination to exhaust his administrative remedies."). Lastly, even if the court could consider plaintiff's newest EEO complaint, plaintiff cannot, on the eve of dismissal, inject yet another EEO complaint into his already verbose claim. Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED, and defendant's "Motion for Summary Judgment" [Docket No. 47] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the reference to the magistrate judge is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot. Final Judgment will be entered separately.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15 day of December, 2010.
___________________________________ Ron Clark, United States District Judge
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?