Davis v. Alabama Department of Transportation et al (MAG2), No. 2:2016cv00583 - Document 57 (M.D. Ala. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/29/2017. (dmn, )
Download PDF
Davis v. Alabama Department of Transportation et al (MAG2) Doc. 57 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION DWIGHT H. DAVIS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, as a person under U.S.C. § 1983; et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16cv583-MHT (WO) OPINION Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting claims of retaliation and retaliatory hostile-work environment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (28 U.S.C. § 794), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; conspiracy to violate civil rights; and several state-law claims (negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention; defamation; and intentional infliction of emotional distress). This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United Dockets.Justia.com States Magistrate Judge that defendants’ motion dismiss be granted and this case be dismissed. are no objections to the recommendation. to There After an independent and de novo review of the record, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion to dismiss as to his second amended complaint and his failure to concludes object that the to the recommendation, magistrate judge’s the court recommendation should be adopted, with one exception, and this case dismissed. The court does not adopt that part of the recommendation exhaust concluding administrative claims. that plaintiff as remedies Nevertheless, this failed Title to does his not change to VII the outcome; assuming that plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies, his Title VII retaliation and retaliatory hostile-work environment claims would still be subject to dismissal for the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge for dismissing his analogous claims under Title VII through the vehicle of 2 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Recommendation (doc. no. 56) at 32-38. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 29th day of September, 2017. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE