Teal v. Buckley et al, No. 8:2014cv02550 - Document 20 (D. Md. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/5/2014. (c/m 12/5/2014 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Teal v. Buckley et al Doc. 20 -II _.u' r ~t.. QURi U.S. O\~'ciV~f;.~r{lANI) IN THE UNITED STATES DISI[I1l.1~\f 'cOU'!J: \;: FOR THE DISTRICT OF ~!\l\f,0.N1) l'n SOlllltem Divisioll Ckf * ERIC L. TEAL, OFfiCE (;RSOI8ELI ."". OEPUi'f * Plaintiff, 32 * \3'f---Case No.: G.JH-14-2SS0 \'. * CHRIS BUCKLEY, el al. * Defendants. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM This action IS brought by unrepresented * * * * * * OPINION Plaintiff Eric L. Teal against his Itlrlner employer. R & R Ventures Incorporated. and his ftmner supervisor. Chris Buckley. for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.c. seq. ECF NO.4. This Memorandum and accompanying Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 16. and Plaintiffs Order address Plaintiffs ** 200c. el Motion to Motion to File Amended Complaint and lor Extension of Time to Submit Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF I o. 17. Defendants have not responded to these motions and the time lor doing so has passed. The Court tinds that a hearing is unnecessary. Plaintiffs See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below. Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 16. is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to tile an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. is DENIED without prejudice. Finally. Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. is GRANTED. This Memorandum Opinion disposes of ECF Nos. 16 & 17. Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND According abandonment. supervisor. to Plaintiffs Complaint. he was terminated ECI' NO.4 at 2. PlaintifT explains Jay. and an individual on April 8. 2014 for alleged job that. on that day. he was sick and spoke with a named Dion Berry. !d. He claims that he "was not told that [he] could not clock out:' but when he did so. Dion Berry followed him outside and told him that Chris Buckley would take him ofT the schedule arrived at work on April 10. 2014. Chris Buckley terminated 3. Plaintiff contends that a white employee. III. When PlaintitT for the rest of the week. Anita him for job abandonment. Cannon. was not fired even though out on April 7. 2014 alier stating that she was sick. III. at 3. Plaintiff clocked Maryland Unemployment Board granted Plaintiff unemployment job. III. He states that other black employees Plaintiff completed attached an "employee and he clocked Plaintiff out without also attached status change" Varuel. which reads: "When that he wasn't any management a hand-written she assel1S that the because he did not abandon his have been fired. !d. to his Complaint. by Dion Berry and states "Eric Teal was terminated On the 9th Eric told other employees III. at 2- This fiJr job abandonment form was on 4/9/13. dealing with any crap and said target this. approval and went home:' note li'om an individual ECF NO.4-I whose name appears at I. to be Tracy Eric came to work he got upset when Dion told him to go to the other side with Jay. Eric said that he was not going to put up with Dion's shit and clocked out and left:' ECF No. 4-1 at 2. Plaintiff ("EEOC"). filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment See ECI' No. 4-2 (EEOC Dismissal was unable to conclude that the information The EEOC issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue Opportunity Commission and Notice of Rights). The EEOC found that it it obtained established letter on May 13.2014. 2 !d. a violation of Title VII. !d. Plaintiff then liled two complaints in this Court against his formcr employer and former supervisor, one on August II. 2014 and one on August 21. 2014. which have been consolidated. ECF NO.3. One Defendant Chris Buckley. has filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has liled a Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint and for Extension of Time to Rcspond to Dcfendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 16 & 17. II. MOTION TO APPOINT Under 28 U.S.c. COUNSEL ~ 1915(e)( I), this Court IS authorized to appoint counsel to an unrepresented litigant in a civil proceeding. however. this is a discretionary function that is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Cook 1'. BO/lnd.\'. 518 F.2d 779. 780 (4th Cir. 1975). 42 U.S.c. ~ 2000(e)(!)( I) also provides that the Court may appoint counsel in a Title VII case under "such circumstances as the court may deem just." Whether a civil case warrants the appointment of counsel depends on the characteristics of the elaim and the litigant Wl1isl'lwn/ ", u.s. Dislricl Yllam. 739 F.2d 160. 163 (4th Cir. 1984). abroga/I'd on 01111'1' grtl/l/1(II' hy Mallard COllrl, 490 U,S, 296. 298 (1989), When an unrepresented litigant has a colorable elaim but lacks 1'. the capacity to present it. counsel should be appointed. Id. (ciring Gordon \'. Ll'l'kl'. 574 F.2d 1147. 1173 (4th Cir. 1978), Although the Fourth Circuit has not considered what factors are relevant in deciding if circumstances considered the plaintiffs warrant appointment of counsel, other courts have financial ability to retain an attorney. the efforts of the plaintilTto retain counsel. and the merits of the case, SI'I' YOlll1g \'. Kmarl. 911 F.Supp. 210. 211 (E,D.Va, 1996) (ciring Mill'S 1'. Dl'p'I of Army. 881 F,2d 777. 784 n.6 (9th Cir. 1989); Caslon \'. SWI'S. ROl'h/lek & Co.. 556 F,2d 1305, 1308-10 (5th Cir. 1977)). In a Title Vll case. the Court considers the EEOC's conclusions regarding Plaintiffs Garrison 1'. S((III' o{.IId.. Grl'a/ Oaks claim when deciding whether to appoint counsel. SI'I' 0111' .• 850 F.Supp. 366. 368 (D. Md. 1994). 3 In his Motion to Appoint Counsel. "better olr represented by counsel. Plaintiff asserts that he is not an attorney and would be ECl' No. 16. lie states that he only tiled the lawsuit on his !d. Further. in his motion for leave to proceed injimlla own behalf because of time constraints. pal/peris. PlaintitT indicates that he earned $312.00 per month and pays $300.00 per month for room and board. ECl' No.2. Plaintiff has not suggested While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs to the Court that he has engaged financial situation. in any efforts to retain counsel. To ..ati \'. Board o{7i"l/SleeS o{ MOnlgomelY Comml/Ility College. 2004 WL 5215490 (D.Md. Jan. 20. 2004) consideration (factoring when denying the EEOC found provided. ECF determination 4-2. to make of counsel). not tind a violation While this of Title is by no means of the case. it is relevant efforts counsel into As for the merits of the case. VII based on the information binding to the determination to retain *1 on the of whether Court"s appointed ultimate counsel IS Garrisoll. 850 l'.Supp. at 368. warranted. Under the facts presented Complaint. to the Court. although not frivolous PlaintifT has not shown the Court that he has a colorable the appointment plaintiff failure motion for appointment that it could No. plaintitTs at of counsel. was demoted of the complaint circumstances. because at 212 (finding of racial discrimination was not frivolous appointment Motion for the Appointment of counsel). of Counsel III. has requested complaint stating that solely on the reading In the absence of exceptional is DENIED. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Plaintiff of the Title VII claim warranting See YOl/llg. 911 F.Supp. but did not support Plaintiffs trom the reading without prejudice. If Plaintiff consent from defense counsel sixty days to amend his Complaint. This Motion is DENIED wishes to amend his complaint. he must first attempt pursuant If consent to local rule 103.6(d). 4 cannot to obtain be obtained. Plaintiff may file a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complain!. and he must comply with this COUtt's local rules by attaching the following to his motion: (I) a clean copy of the proposed amended pleading. and (2) a copy of the proposed amended pleading in which additional material is underlined or set forth in bold-faced type and stricken material is lined through or enclosed in brackets. See Local Rules 103.6(a) and (c). IV. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff has requested an additional sixty days to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. citing several personal and tinancial struggles. Defcndant has not opposed Plaintiffs request. Thc Court GRANTS Plaintiff s motion. and Plainti ITwi II have sixty days Irom the date of this Order to respond to Delcndant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12). V. CONCLUSION For thc reasons stated above. Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 16. is DENIED: Plaintiffs Motion to file Amended Complain!. ECF No. 17. is DENIED: and Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Response to De!cndant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. is GRANTED. A separate Order shall issue. Dated: December ~/< -- '7 .2014 GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 5
]]>
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.
