SINGLETON v. PITTSBURGH BOARD OF EDUCATION et al
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 77] is granted with prejudice as to all claims, except for Plaintiffs claims for disparate treatment and hostile work environment. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complain t against Defendant Pittsburgh Public School District regarding any hostile work environment and/or disparate treatment claim no later than July 22, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Robert Fadzen's motion to dismiss [Doc. 75] is grant ed and all claims, except for the defamation claim, are dismissed with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan [Doc. 89] has been adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 7/1/2013. (acs)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GERALD SINGLETON ,
Plaintiff,
v.
PITTSBURGH BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 11-1431
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and
Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
On May 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 89)
recommending that Defendants’ Pittsburgh Public School District, Dante Borgini, Latisha
Cassidy McClelland, Kenneth Scott, Margaret Seig and Jody Spolar’s motion to dismiss (Doc.
77) be granted with prejudice as to all claims asserted in Plaintiff’s amended complaint1 (Doc.
73), except for Plaintiff’s claims for disparate treatment and hostile work environment, which the
Magistrate Judge recommended be dismissed without prejudice.
Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Robert Fadzen’s motion
to dismiss (Doc. 75) be granted as to all claims asserted in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, except
1
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, appears to raise a
due process violation claim under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding his termination, as well as a claim that
Defendants conspired to deprive him of his due process rights. And although not specifically pled, Plaintiff also sets
forth allegations suggesting claims for hostile work environment and disparate treatment against Defendant
Pittsburgh Public School District as well as a defamation claim against Defendant Robert Fadzen.
for Plaintiff’s state law claim for defamation. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s defamation claim, and dismiss
the claim without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to, if he so desires, file the claim in state court.
Service of the Report and Recommendation was made on the parties, Plaintiff timely
filed Objections (Doc. 90) and Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 91).
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation, Objections thereto and Response, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Report and Recommendation of May 24, 2013 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Pittsburgh Public School District, Dante Borgini,
Latisha Cassidy McClelland, Kenneth Scott, Margaret Seig and Jody Spolar’s motion to dismiss
(Doc. 77) is granted with prejudice as to all claims, except for Plaintiff’s claims for disparate
treatment and hostile work environment.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, although not formally pled, the allegations contained
in Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 73) suggest Plaintiff may be attempting to assert Title
VII claims for hostile work environment and/or disparate treatment based on race. It is not clear,
however, whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies before the EEOC. Therefore,
to the extent asserted, Plaintiff’s claims for disparate treatment and hostile work environment are
dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies before the
EEOC, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, if filed, should set forth sufficient facts to state a
plausible disparate treatment and/or hostile work environment claim against the School District,
including facts that demonstrate he exhausted his administrative remedies.
-2-
Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file a second amended complaint against Defendant
Pittsburgh Public School District regarding any hostile work environment and/or disparate
treatment claim no later than July 22, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Robert Fadzen’s motion to dismiss (Doc.
75) is granted and all claims, except for the defamation claim, are dismissed with prejudice. The
Court will refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s defamation claim,
and dismiss the claim without prejudice.
July 1, 2013
s/ Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
cc:
All attorneys of record (via CM/ECF e-mail).
-3-
]]>
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?
