Blair v. ADT. (Tyco)
Filing
14
Memorandum Opinion and Order: dismissing The court ORDERS that each of the above-captioned actions, and all claims asserted therein by plaintiff, be, and are hereby, dismissed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 2/7/2014) (mdf)
u.s. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MABLE BLAIR,
CY.. ERK. U.S. DISTRICTCOtJRT
'By
_
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS.
lIB -7 2014
rkptl~
NO. 4:13-CV-944-A
§
§
§
§
ADT (TYCO),
Defendant.
MABLE BLAIR,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
VS.
ALLY FINANCIAL CORP (GMAC) ,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
NO. 4:13-CV-945-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Plaintiff, Mable Blair, filed both of the above-captioned
actions on November 25, 2013, naming
ADT (TYCO)
("ADT") as
defendant in Case No. 4:13-~V-944-A ("944") and Ally Financial
Corp (GMAC)
("945").
("Ally") as the defendant in Case No. 4:13-CV-945-A
plaintiff was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in
each of the cases.
Before ordering service of process, the court
routinely reviews each complaint in a case such as these to
determine whether the court's jurisdiction has been properly
invoked, and whether the complaint, or any portion thereof, is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
28 U.S.C.
§
1915 (e) (2) (B).
The entirety of the text in plaintiff's 944 complaint was
the following:
Charge of Discrimination
Disabilities Act of 1990
Retaliation due to prior complaint (EEOC) (charge)
Section 704(a) of Title VII of civil Rights Act of 1964
Violation.
944 Compl. at 1.
Attached to the 944 complaint, but not
mentioned in the complaint, was a copy of a Charge of
Discrimination plaintiff apparently filed with the EEOC on
August 22, 2013, in which the following entries were made under
the heading "The Particulars Are":
Personal Harm:
On June 24, 2013, Sonya Slaughter has given potential
employers negative reference checks in my regard, and
giving them the impression that I should be regarded as
disabled. I feel this is ongoing discrimination and
retaliation from filing a previous EEOC charge.
Respondents [sic] Reason for Adverse Action:
Abandonment of a call
Discrimination Statement:
I believe that I have been discriminated against
because of my disability, in violation of the American
[sic] with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and
retaliation from filing a previous charge on protected
activity, in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII
of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
2
The entirety of the text in the 945 complaint was as
follows:
Violation of Disabilities Act of 1990
Retaliation due to prior complaint (charge) (EEOC)
Section 704(a) of Title VII of civil Rights Act of 1964
Violation.
945 Compl. at 1.
Attached to the 945 complaint, but not
mentioned in the complaint, was a copy of a Charge of
Discrimination plaintiff apparently filed with the EEOC on
August 22, 2013, in which the following entries were made under
the heading "The Particulars Are":
Personal Harm:
Since around 2011, Manny Gonzales and Chris Thompson
have been giving potential employers negative reference
checks in my regard, and giving them the impression
that I should be regarded as disabled. This is
retaliation for filing a former EEOC charge.
Respondents [sic] Reason for Adverse Action:
None given
Discrimination statement:
I believe that I have been discriminated against
because of my disability, in violation of the American
[sic] with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and
retaliation from filing a previous charge on protected
activity, in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII
of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
On December 26, 2013, the court issued an order in each of
the captioned cases informing plaintiff that the allegations of
her complaint were not sufficient and ordering plaintiff to file
in each case by 4:00 p.m. on January 17, 2014, an amended
3
complaint that complies with the applicable Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the applicable Local Civil Rules of this
court.
Each order explained to plaintiff the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
On January 15, 2014, plaintiff filed in each of the
captioned actions a document titled "Statement of Claim" that
started out in each instance with a repeat of the exact language
plaintiff had used in the items she filed November 25, 2013.
In
each instance, that language was followed by a narrative
description of events.
The narrative description of events
described in each instance difficulties plaintiff had with fellow
employees, apparently during her employment with Ally from April
2008 to January 2011 and her employment with ADT from April 2012
to July 2012.
However, no facts, as opposed to conclusions, were
alleged that would, if accepted as true, state a Title VII
employment discrimination cause of action against the defendant
in either of the cases.
The court cannot infer from anything alleged by plaintiff in
either of the cases that facts exist that would suggest that
plaintiff has a plausible Title VII claim against the defendant.
Simply having an unpleasant work situation, which is all
plaintiff alleged in either case, does not give rise to a Title
4
VII claim.
Mere conclusory allegations, such as plaintiff made,
are not sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief
may be granted.
For the reasons stated above, the court, pursuant to the
authority of 28 U.S.C.
§
1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii), is dismissing each of
the above-captioned actions.
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that each of the above-captioned actions,
and all claims asserted therein by plaintiff, be, and are hereby,
dismissed.
SIGNED February 7, 2014.
JOHJ:t c
YDE
/;o-un' ed States
5
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?