Oliver v. Dothan City Board of Education (MAG+), No. 1:2016cv00677 - Document 11 (M.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED: 1) Plf's 10 Objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 8 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), Plf's Title VII claim against Dft Dothan City Board of Education is DISMISSE D for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Title VII claim was not timely filed; 4) Plf's state law defamation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice on grounds that, pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c), the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over that claim; and 5) There being no other claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 10/26/2016. (wcl, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Oliver v. Dothan City Board of Education (MAG+) Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHERRYL OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. DOTHAN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16-CV-677-WKW (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On October 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 8) to which Plaintiff timely filed objections. (Doc. # 10.) The court has considered the record and the objections and has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff has not shown any error in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that her Title VII claim be dismissed for failure to timely file suit. Plaintiff’s objections and the attached exhibits confirm that she did not file suit within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter. (Doc. # 10-1 at page 5.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 10) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 8) is ADOPTED; Dockets.Justia.com 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), Plaintiff’s Title VII claim against Defendant Dothan City Board of Education is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Title VII claim was not timely filed; 4. Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice on grounds that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over that claim; and 5. There being no other claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, this case is DISMISSED. Final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 26th day of October, 2016. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
