Scott v. Carter Bloodcare

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court and OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/31/15. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ROSLAND SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARTER BLOODCARE,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION No. 6:14-cv-655

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above entitled and numbered civil action was assigned to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (“R&R”), which grants Defendant Carter BloodCare’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 9), has been presented for consideration. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s
lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to allege
any set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Specifically, Defendant
asserted the action is barred as a matter of law because Plaintiff failed to file a claim prior to the
ninety-day deadline statutorily mandated by Title VII, and argues the ninety-day period should
not be equitably tolled during the pendency of her prior lawsuit.
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendant’s motion, stating that equitable
tolling of the filing period was not applicable or justified in this situation, and, even if equitable
tolling applied, Plaintiff still failed to meet the deadline. R&R at 4-6. Plaintiff, proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, objected to the Report and Recommendation and has requested
additional time to retain an attorney. Doc. No. 15.

The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct and the objection is without merit. Plaintiff’s written objection does not contradict the
findings in the Report and Recommendation. Rather, Plaintiff simply requests time to retain
counsel. Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant does not excuse her failure to meet the statutorilyimposed deadlines. Courts have continuously held that ignorance of the law and inadvertent
noncompliance, including missed deadlines and defective pleadings, are inexcusable even for
pro se. litigants. See, e.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 114, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124
L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) (“we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation
should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel”); Teemac
v. Henderson, 298 F.3d 452, 458 (5th Cir.2002). Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and
conclusions of this Court and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection.
SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2015.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE