Williams v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., 1:16-cv-00888

Williams v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc.

1:16-cv-00888

S.D. Ohio

Sep 9, 2016

Check Treatment

Docket

Case Information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
vs
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-888
Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Fairfield, Ohio, brings this pro se civil action against Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. alleging discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. By separate Order issued this date, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of plaintiff's complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a "litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. $§ § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (I)$ . A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

*2 Case: 1:16-cv-00888-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/09/16 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 16 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or "wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199 .

Congress has also authorized the dismissal of complaints which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. $§ § 1915$ (e)(2)(B)(ii-iii). The plaintiff's complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted); Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co., 503 F.3d 441, 446 (6th Cir. 2007). The complaint must also provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following statement of facts: Violation of my civil rights discriminated termination of job based on my race, color, and age. (Doc. 1, Complaint at 2). As relief, plaintiff seeks "Back pay and my job returned to me." (Id. at 3).

In this case, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Title VII prohibits "employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in hiring, firing, salary structure, promotion and the like." Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2523 (2013) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that he was discriminated against on the basis of

his race, age, sex, disability, or any other suspect classification. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Instead, plaintiff's complaint alleges a legal conclusion of discrimination without any factual enhancement to support or explain this conclusion. The Court need not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also Sam Han v. Univ. of Dayton, 541 F. App'x 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2013) (upholding trial court's dismissal of employment discrimination case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where the plaintiff failed to allege facts from which a reasonable person could infer how his race or gender factored into the employer's employment decision).

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED.

The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277

*4 Case: 1:16-cv-00888-SJD-KLL Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/09/16 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 18 (6th Cir. 1997).

Date: $\underset{―}{9} / 1 / 11 e$

Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs
CAS No. 1:16-cv-888
Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO R&ampR

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections

WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Read the detailed case summary