James v. Montgomery Regional Airport Authority et al (MAG +), No. 2:2015cv00332 - Document 40 (M.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: (1) The 38 recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is adopted; (2) Dfts' 35 motion to dismiss is granted with respect to plf's Title VII claims but denied in all other respects, and pl f's Title VII claims are dismissed without prejudice; (3) This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
James v. Montgomery Regional Airport Authority et al (MAG +) Doc. 40 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION BOOTH T. JAMES, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MONTGOMERY REGIONAL ) AIRPORT AUTHORITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15cv332-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, asserting claims environment, This who is of harassment, lawsuit is now pro se, filed retaliation, and this hostile retaliatory before the lawsuit work discharge. court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted to the extent that plaintiff’s Title VII claims should be dismissed and that the motion should be denied in all other respects. recommendation. There After are an no objections independent and to de the novo Dockets.Justia.com review of the record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be adopted. Upon review of the record, the court notes that plaintiff may have viable Title VII claims for retaliation, retaliatory hostile work environment, and retaliatory discharge based on his complaints of race discrimination, including his letter to his employer alleging race discrimination, which was not attached to plaintiff’s complaint and therefore was not considered by the Judge.1 Magistrate potentially be pleaded in These a claims complaint in a could manner sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss; therefore, and because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII claims is properly without such prejudice. claims, amended he Should must complaint seek that plaintiff seek to to adds leave to his to file most pursue a new recent complaint the additional factual allegations supporting * The court does not express any opinion whether these claims are, in fact, meritorious. 2 as to such claims. * * * Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 38) is adopted. (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 35) is granted with respect to plaintiff’s Title VII claims but denied in all other respects, and plaintiff’s Title VII claims are dismissed without prejudice. (3) This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE, this the 17th day of August, 2016. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
