Whitlock v. Lazor Spot, Inc.

Full title: BOBBY D. WHITLOCK v. LAZOR SPOT, INC.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

Date published: Jan 19, 2016

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1814 (W.D. La. Jan. 19, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1814

01-19-2016

BOBBY D. WHITLOCK v. LAZOR SPOT, INC.

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

MAG. JUDGE JOSEPH PEREZ-MONTES

RULING

This is an employment discrimination suit filed by Plaintiff Bobby D. Whitlock ("Whitlock"), a former employee of Defendant Lazer Spot, Inc.¹ ("Lazer Spot"), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.² Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) ("Motion to Dismiss") [Doc. No. 8] filed by Lazer Spot. Lazer Spot seeks dismissal of Whitlock's claims of race discrimination and hostile work environment.

1 Defendant's name was incorrectly spelled "Lazor" in the Complaint. The Court uses the correct spelling.

2 Whitlock previously abandoned his claims of age discrimination. [Doc. No. 15, p. 4]. --------

On December 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kirk issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 19] in which he recommended that the Court grant Lazer Spot's Motion to Dismiss and dismiss his Title VII claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim as a matter of law. On December 10, 2015, Whitlock filed objections [Doc. No. 20] to the Report and Recommendation. On December 23, 2015, Lazer Spot filed a response to the objections. [Doc. No. 23].

Having reviewed the entire record in this matter, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Kirk correctly stated and analyzed the law. The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

In reviewing the record, the Court considered whether any of Whitlock's pleadings could be construed as a motion for leave to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). However, the factual allegations in his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and his objections to Magistrate Judge Kirk's Report and Recommendation, even when considered with his Complaint, still fail to state a claim as a matter of law for discriminatory discharge for a work rules violation or a racially hostile work environment. Thus, it would be futile to allow Whitlock to amend his Complaint.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kirk, Lazer Spot's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Whitlock's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 19^th day of January, 2016.

/s/ _________

ROBERT G. JAMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE