Moralez v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al, No. 1:2019cv00957 - Document 19 (W.D. Mich. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 ; Plaintiff's motion to serve the complaint 10 and 16 are DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment 12 and 15 are DENIED as moot; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF
Moralez v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN MORALEZ, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:19-cv-957 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed various motions. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections, denies the motions, and issues this Opinion and Order. I. Objections Although Plaintiff sets forth a number of purported objections in two lengthy filings (ECF Nos. 9 & 11), he presents no coherent, valid challenge to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Plaintiff appears to essentially object to the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate determination Dockets.Justia.com that the EEOC’s “alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with a Form 5 did not constitute an abuse of discretion,” and thus, “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus” (R&R, ECF No. 8 at PageID.62). Plaintiff references a previously filed case, No. 1:18-cv-634, to support his position that “the Federal District Court must immediately grant the federal Plaintiff the extraordinary mandamus prospective relief remedies” in part because “the Hon. Sally J. Berens’s [on] December 19, 2019 stated Defendant EEOC Form 5 Form issuance ‘cited legal position’ is directly contradicted by both this U.S. District Court and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ legal holdings in Williams v. CSX Transportation” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 11 at PageID.146-149). However, the Magistrate Judge properly set forth the steps, pursuant to Williams, for Plaintiff to amend his discrimination charge without a Form 5 (R&R, ECF No. 8 at PageID.62; citing Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502, 509 (6th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge “is legally forbidden to enter any ‘dispositive’ order specifically regarding the pro se in forma pauperis Plaintiff’s December 26, 2019 ‘dispositive’ filed motion” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 9 at PageID.65). Plaintiff’s objection appears to be misplaced. The record does not reflect any such order. Plaintiff’s “objections” to the Report and Recommendation merely reiterate the citations to authority and arguments Plaintiff originally presented in his motion (ECF No. 1), and fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the objections are denied. II. Motions Plaintiff has filed two Motions to serve the complaint (ECF Nos. 10 & 16) and two Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 12 & 14). In light of the denial of Plaintiff’s objections and 2 the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, the motions are denied as moot. Accordingly, this Court will deny the objections and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Because this Opinion and Order resolves all pending claims in this case, a Judgment will also be entered. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Further, because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge, that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF Nos. 9 & 11) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to serve the complaint (ECF Nos. 10 & 16) are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 12 & 15) are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. /s/ Janet T. Neff Dated: September 30, 2020 JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge 3

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.