Sanders v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
| Decision Date | 26 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-02313-JMC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Eric Alan Sanders, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC; EEOC of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; Rayvon Irby, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Eric Alan Sanders ("Sanders" or "Plaintiff") filed this action pro se against Defendants Lowe's Home Centers, LLC ("Lowe's"); the EEOC of Charlotte, NC; John Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; and Rayvon Irby alleging that he was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e17, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff also alleges claims for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for violation of South Carolina statutory law. (ECF No. 16.)
This matter is before the court pursuant to a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett.1 On September 21, 2015, theMagistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court dismiss Defendant EEOC of Charlotte, NC ("EEOC") from the matter "without prejudice and without issuance and service of process." (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which Objections are presently before the court. (ECF No. 33.) For the reasons set forth below, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and DISMISSES the EEOC from this matter.
On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this action alleging as follows:
(ECF No. 16 at 8 ¶ 39-9 ¶ 42.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., the Magistrate Judge reviewed the allegations against the EEOC and issued the aforementioned Report and Recommendation on September 21, 2015. (ECF No. 26.) On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 33.)
This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Title VII claim via 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it arises under a law of the United States, and also via 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), which empowers district courts to hear claims "brought under" Title VII. Additionally, the court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim via 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the claim arises under a law of the United States, and also via 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117 & 2000e-5(f)(3), which empower district courts to hear claims by "person[s] alleging discrimination on the basis of disability." The court may properly hear Plaintiff's state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction since they are "so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that . . . it form[s] part of the same case or controversy . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which specific objections2 are filed, and reviews those portions which are not objected to - including those portions towhich only "general and conclusory" objections have been made - for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff brought this action pro se, which requires the court to liberally construe his pleadings. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. "The mandated liberal construction means only that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so." Mansouri v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., C/A No. 8:14-cv-02251-JMC, 2015 WL 5009260, at *3 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2015) (citing Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999)). Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
Upon her review, the Magistrate Judge observed that the basis of Plaintiff's claims against the EEOC was an alleged mishandling of Plaintiff's Charge, which position has been uniformly denied as not actionable. (ECF No. 26 at 4 (citing, e.g., Cetina v. Michelin N. Am.,C/A No. 6:12-2222-HMH-JDA, 2012 WL 5430274, at *3 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2012) ("All circuit courts that have addressed the issue agree that 'a private-sector employee has no cause of action against the EEOC for its failure to process a charge of discrimination.'" (quoting Jordan v. Summers, 205 F.3d 337, 342 (7th Cir. 2000)). Moreover, the Magistrate Judge observed that as an agency of the United States, the EEOC cannot be sued without consent from the Government and enjoys immunity from suits for damages at common law. (ECF No. 26 at 5 ().) As a result of the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff's claims for violation of Title VII and/or the ADA, and any constitutional and/or state law claims should be summarily dismissed. (ECF No. 26 at 4-6.)
Plaintiff states both "general" and "specific" Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In his General Objections, Plaintiff argues the Report and Recommendation should be vacated because: (1) the court has required him to certify his income on two occasions (ECF No. 33 at 2); and (2) the Magistrate Judge issued the Report while Plaintiff's motion to recuse was pending in all of his cases. (Id.) In his Specific Objections, Plaintiff argues that ADA claims against the EEOC are permissible since the statute uses a definition of person that includes "individuals, governments, government agencies, . . . [and] legal representatives." (ECF No. 33 at 3 (referencing 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e).) Plaintiff further argues that the United States did waive its sovereign immunity since the definition of personincludes governments and government agencies. (Id. (referencing 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e).) In support of his arguments, Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to proceed with his claims against the agency because the EEOC expressly refused to investigate his claim and interfered with his participation in the complaint process. (Id. at 4-6.)
Because he has alleged the denial of benefits of the EEOC's services, programs, and activities, Plaintiff asserts a violation of Title II of the ADA, which law protects individuals from exclusion from participation in or the denial of "the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. However, for ADA purposes, the federal government is not included within the definition of a public entity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial