Drake v. Frederick W. Smith Fedex Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-02636-JTF-atc |
| Parties | ERIC DRAKE, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK W. SMITH FEDEX CORPORATION, BARBARA GOLDEN LYNN, MICHAEL PAIGE LYNN, SAM ALLEN LINDSAY, DAVID C. GODBEY, JAMES EDGAR KINCAIDE, JANE ELLEN JACKSON BOYLE, REED O'CONNOR, KAREN GREN SCHOLER, MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK, MARK TIMOTHY PITTMAN, JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX, BRANTLEY STARR, ADA BROWN, A. JOE FISH, SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, SAM R. CUMMINGS, JOHN H. MCBRYDE, TERRY R. MEANS, IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, JEFFREY L. CURETON, RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, DAVID L. HORAN, HAL R. RAY, JR., LEE ANN RENO, REBECCA RUTHERFORD, JOHN R. PARKER, JAMES DAVID FOLSOM, CAROLINE CRAVEN, ROBERT SCHROEDER III, FGPS, FEDEX COPORATE SERVICES, INC., WARREN LLOYD VAVRA, MARICELA MOORE, SCOT MACDONALD GRAYDON, and TONYA PARKER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART, REJECTING IN PART, AND MODIFYING IN PART THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff Eric Drake filed a pro se Complaint raising numerous claims against Defendants FedEx Corporation, FedEx Corporate Services, and Frederick W Smith.[1](ECF No. 1.) On November 1, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. (ECF No. 11.) Drake responded with a flurry of filings on November 22, 2021: a Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants, (ECF No. 12), a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13), a Motion for Leave to Offer Evidence and Proof, (ECF No. 14), a Motion for Leave to Take Depositions In-Person and or by Zoom, Prior to Ruling on Dispositive Motion and Request Evidentiary Hearing, (ECF No 15), and finally an Amended Complaint against All Defendants (ECF No. 16). The Defendants filed a single joint response to these motions on December 3, 2021. (ECF No. 21.) That same day, the Defendants filed a new Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 19 & 20.) Drake next filed a Motion for Sanctions and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to FedEx's new Motion to Dismiss, and a “Plaintiffs' Request Court's Opinion of Whether the Actions of the FEDEX Driver Repetitive Use of the ‘N' Word Amounts to Race Discrimination,” all on December 13, 2021. (ECF Nos. 22, 23, & 24.) The Court then referred all outstanding motions in the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge on December 16, 2021. (ECF No. 26.) The Defendants filed responses to the Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and the Motion for Sanctions on December 21, 2021, (ECF Nos. 29 & 30), as well as a Supplemental Motion to Strike on the same day, (ECF No. 31.) Drake filed his responses to the new Motion to Dismiss and the Motions to Strike, (ECF Nos. 34 & 35), as well as his replies to the Defendants' prior responses, (ECF Nos. 36 & 37), on January 3, 2022. The Defendants filed a final reply to Drake's “Request” on January 11, 2022. (ECF No. 39.)
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) addressing all of the above cross-motions on August 23, 2022. (ECF No. 40.) The R & R recommended denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Drake's § 1981 and declaratory judgment claims, declining to dismiss Drake's state law claims, granting the Motion to Dismiss as to Drake's Title II claims, granting the Defendants' Motion to Strike and Supplemental Motion to Strike regarding paragraphs 52-57, 154, 227, and 228-242 of the Amended Complaint, Denying Drake's Motion for Sanctions, and Dismissing all judicial defendants from the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (Id. at 37.) The Magistrate Judge also separately ordered that the first Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot, Drake's Motion to Review Submitted Pleadings be denied as moot, Drake's Motion for Leave to Take Depositions In-Person and or by Zoom be denied, Drake's Motion for Leave to Offer Evidence and Proof be denied, and Drake's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants be granted only as to 3 specified defendants. (Id. at 37-38.) The Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Response/Reply to the Report and Recommendations on August 25, 2022, (ECF No. 41), which the Court granted on August 26, 2022, (ECF No. 42.) Drake filed “Plaintiff's Revised Demand for Damages Against FedEx,” which the Court construes as his objections to the R & R, on September 6, 2022. (ECF No. 43.) The Defendants filed their objections on September 13, 2022. (ECF No. 44.) With the R & R now ripe for review, the Court hereby ADOPTS IN PART, REJECTS IN PART, and MODIFIES IN PART the R & R, ultimately dismissing all of Drake's claims except those under 5 U.S.C. § 1981 and granting Drake leave to file an amended complaint with only FedEx Ground listed as the proper defendant.
Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts by permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates.” United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court, except various dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Upon hearing a pending matter, “the magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); See also Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed. App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). Any party who disagrees with a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations may file written objections to the report and recommendations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A or waiver. McCready v. Kamminga, 113 Fed. App'x 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004.) In McCready, the Court noted that McCready only managed in his “rambling, 143-page objection” to, repeatedly and inappropriately, insult the magistrate judge, demand acceptance of his factual and legal conclusions as accurate, characterize the defendants as liars, and threaten the district court if his action was dismissed. Id. In the end, the court found that McCready's objections were general in nature and therefore amounted to a failure by McCready to object at all.
The standard of review that is applied by a district court when considering a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations depends on the nature of the matter(s) considered by the magistrate judge. See Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed. App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) ( ). Where timely, specific objections are filed, the parts objected to are reviewed under a de novo standard. Rugiero v. United States, 330 F.Supp.2d 900, 904 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Upon a review of the evidence, the district court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. Brown v. Board of Educ., 47 F.Supp.3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the [m]agistrate [j]udge with instructions.” Moses v. Gardner, No. 2:14-cv-2706-SHL-dkv, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015). Again, a district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) is filed. Brown, 47 F.Supp.3d at 674. An objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that does nothing more than state a disagreement with the magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an objection, as required to preserve the right to appeal a subsequent order of the district court adopting the report. J.A. v. Smith County School District, 364 F.Supp.3d 803, 811-12 (M.D. Tenn. 2019).
At the outset, to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “A claim is plausible on its face if the ‘plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Without factual allegations in support, mere legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and are thus liberally construed. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011). However, Pro se litigants must adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Also, the court cannot create a claim that has not been spelled out in a pleading. Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed. App'x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011); Payne v. Sec'y of Treas., 73 Fed. App'x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003).
“Federal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Answers...
To continue reading
Request your trial