Opinion
C. A. 1:23-6107-SAL-SVH
03-14-2024
Donald R. Walker-Bey, Plaintiff, v. Elizabeth Tyger; Kristan Craig; Robert Allen Bell; and Kimberly Clark Corporation, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Donald R. Walker-Bey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this fee-paid employment discrimination action against Elizabeth Tyger, Kristan Craig, and Robert Allen Bell Joey (collectively “Individual Defendants”), and Kimberly Clark Corporation (“Kimberly Clark”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends Individual Defendants be dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff originally filed this action only against Individual Defendants. On November 30, 2023, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to complete a proposed summons in order to bring this case into proper form for service. In the order the undersigned included a footnote stating:
The court notes that Plaintiff has sued only individual defendants and has not sued his employer. The court notes that individual defendants are not subject to liability under Title VII. See Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 193 F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating “Title VII does not authorize a remedy against individuals for violations of its provisions”); Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 511-14 (4th Cir. 1994). The Clerk is directed to include a form complaint with this order in the event Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint naming his employer in place of the individuals.
[ECF No. 3]. In response, Plaintiff submitted the first 2 pages of a form complaint, in which he added Kimberly Clark to the caption in addition to the individual defendants previously named. [ECF No. 5]. He also submitted a proposed summons, but the summons listed only Kimberly Clark and did not include Individual Defendants. [ECF No. 7].
On December 12, 2023, the undersigned issued an order noting that Plaintiff had been advised that individuals are not subject to suit under Title VII and also advising Plaintiff the documents he submitted were insufficient to bring the case into proper form for service of process. The order again directed Plaintiff to submit a summons listing “every Defendant named in this matter.” [ECF No. 9].
On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint naming Kimberly Clark in addition to Individual Defendants. [ECF No. 11]. All of the claims in the amended complaint are brought pursuant to Title VII. He also submitted a proposed summons listing only Kimberly Clark as a Defendant. [ECF No. 12].
By separate order, the undersigned has authorized issuance of the summons.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal district court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Merriweather v. Reynolds, 586 F.Supp.2d 548, 554 (D.S.C. 2008). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that 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).
B. Analysis
It appears Plaintiff did not intend to proceed against Individual Defendants, as he repeatedly failed, after specific instructions, to provide summonses for Individual Defendants. Therefore, the undersigned recommends Individual Defendants be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to provide summonses for them.
Even if Plaintiff intended to proceed against Individual Defendants, they are still subject to summary dismissal because his Title VII claims against them are frivolous. “Frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, even when the filing fee has been paid.”
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends Individual Defendants be dismissed.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).