Miller v. Fedex Corporation

Full title: STEPHANIE MILLER, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Feb 13, 2004

3:03-CV-3026-R (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2004)

Opinion

3:03-CV-3026-R

February 13, 2004

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of this court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of race and gender. She also states Defendant wrongfully fired her, retaliated against her, caused her emotional distress, committed fraud and violated state equal pay laws. She is proceeding pro se, and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Discussion :

Plaintiff does not state the basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court assumes that Plaintiff has filed her race and gender discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e — 2000e 17 (2003). A condition precedent to bringing a Title VII action in federal court is the exhaustion of available administrative remedies. Taylor v. Books A Million, 296 F.3d 376, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion occurs when an individual files a timely Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and subsequently receives a statutory notice from the Commission of the right to sue. Id. at 379. The issuance of a right-to-sue notice confirms that all administrative remedies have been exhausted and that the alleged aggrieved party may initiate judicial proceedings. In this case, Plaintiff states that she filed a complaint with the EEOC in June, 2002, but that she has not yet received a right-to-sue letter. (Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire, Answer No. 2). Plaintiff has failed to show that she has exhausted her administrative remedies. Accordingly, her Title VII claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff also raises state law claims of fraud, wrongful termination, emotional distress and violations of state equal pay laws. Because the Court recommends that Plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed, it also recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's state claims. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) ("pendant jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion. . . . Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.").

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Am. 474 U.S. 140, 150, (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n. 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).