Opinion
Civil Action 3:21-CV-3099-X-BT
02-16-2023
STEPHEN BARNES Plaintiff, v. JAMES WALTERS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BRANTLEY STARR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 14]. Plaintiff Stephen Barnes, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued James Walters, Andre Salone, Stephen Holt, and the Dallas Department of Veterans Administration Medical Center (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants discriminated against him because of his age and then retaliated against him for “fighting back” against that discrimination.The Magistrate Judge concluded that the amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus recommended that the Court dismiss Barnes's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
See Doc. No. 14 at 2-3.
Doc. No. 14 at 12.
Barnes filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's reports and argued he has “stated more than enough facts” to substantiate his claim.But he fails to address the Magistrate Judge's concern that he “d[id] not allege any specifics about the position he was not promoted to, much less that he was qualified for it,” which are two of the necessary showings for a prima facie age discrimination case.Nor does he “provide [] details . . . about his job responsibilities” or the timing of the alleged adverse actions sufficient to remedy the Magistrate Judge's stated concerns with his retaliation claim.Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Barnes's objection.
Doc. No. 15 at 1.
Doc. No. 14 at 6-7 (citing Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 351 F.3d 183, 196 (5th Cir. 2003)).
See id. at 9-10.
The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations, to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. The Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Because, as the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, Barnes has already pleaded his “best case” and failed to state a claim,the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Barnes's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Id. at 11 (citing Wiggins v. La. State Univ.-Health Care Servs. Div., 710 Fed. App'x 625, 627 (5th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.