Miller v. Abbott Labs., Inc.

Full title: CRAIG MILLER, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: Feb 8, 2013

Case No. 3:12-cv-366 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:12-cv-366

02-08-2013

CRAIG MILLER, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant.

Michael J. Newman

District Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT

***

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ¹ THAT (1) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 7) BE DENIED AS MOOT; AND (2) DEFENDANTS STEVEN RIDENOUR, AGATHE BLANCHET AND MINDI RORICK BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

1 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.

This pro se employment discrimination case is now before the Court upon Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Doc. 7. When Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' motion, the Court, acting sua sponte, issued a Show Cause Order to Plaintiff. See doc. 22. Plaintiff timely responded to the Order, setting forth good cause to excuse his failure to respond to the dismissal motion, and requested leave to file an amended complaint, which he attached as an exhibit (doc. 22-1 at PageID 70-76). For good cause shown, and because justice so requires, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to file his amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Clerk is ORDERED to docket the attached amended complaint (doc. 22-1 at PageID 70-76) as "Plaintiff's Amended Complaint."

In his amended complaint and attached Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge, Plaintiff complains of racial and disability discrimination, presumably under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The filing of Plaintiff's amended complaint renders Defendants' arguments in the dismissal motion moot. Plaintiff's amended complaint is now on the correct form, and attached thereto is a copy of Plaintiff's right-to-sue notice issued by the EEOC.² See doc. 22-1 at PageID 70-76. Additionally, Plaintiff has dropped his claims against the individual Defendants -- Steven Ridenour, Agathe Blanchet and Mindi Rorick -- and now proceeds solely against Abbott Laboratories, Inc.³

2 Plaintiff initially used the general complaint form rather than the one designated for employment discrimination actions.

3 During the preliminary pretrial conference held on February 6, 2013, Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants briefly discussed this pending motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff confirmed that he intended to dismiss his claims against the individual Defendants.

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 7) be DENIED AS MOOT; and

2. Defendants Steven Ridenour, Agathe Blanchet and Mindi Rorick be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ⁴

4 Individual employees or supervisors -- such as Steven Ridenour, Agathe Blanchet and Mindi Rorick -- are not subject to liability under Title VII or the ADA. See Hiler v. Brown, 177 F.3d 542, 545-46 (6th Cir. 1999); Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 404 n.6 (6th Cir. 1997); Powell v. Morris, 184 F.R.D. 591, 596 (S.D. Ohio 1998). Further, there is no indication that Plaintiff asserts any state law claims in his amended complaint.
--------

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge