Opinion
Case No. 1 : 99-CV-452
October 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court against his former employer, defendant Spartan Stores, Inc. His pro se complaint sets forth claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act, as well as state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and constructive discharge. His claims arise from events occurring between 1992 and 1995, when he was employed with defendant Spartan Stores.
The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of an additional claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Defendant filed its first motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) on May 22, 2000. The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville for report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) (B). Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22) on August 15, 2000. Magistrate Judge Scoville issued a report and recommendation on September 13, 2000, in which he recommended that defendant's first motion for summary judgment based on claim preclusion be granted, and that its second motion on the merits of plaintiff's claims be dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff did not file any response to either of defendant's two motions for summary judgment. He did submit objections to the report and recommendation, which the Court now addresses de novo.
Upon thorough review of the record, the Court finds plaintiff's objections to be without merit. Magistrate Judge Scoville properly presented plaintiff's factual allegations in his current federal complaint as well as those in a prior Kent County Circuit Court case involving the same defendant. In the prior case plaintiff accepted a mediation award of $200,000. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Scoville also correctly analyzed the relevant case law, concluding that Michigan law applies on the issue of whether plaintiff's present claims were presented or should have been presented in the prior state court case for purposes of claim preclusion. Michigan employs a broad application of claim preclusion, focusing on the factual allegations underlying the two cases rather than simply on the claims asserted. See Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 509 N.W.2d 829, 834 (Mich.Ct.App. 1993).
As Magistrate Judge Scoville found, it is clear that plaintiff attempts to assert claims in the present lawsuit that were either resolved or should have been resolved in the prior state lawsuit. In his objections plaintiff acknowledges that the factual allegations involving an on-the-job injury and constructive discharge were pled in his third and fourth amended complaints in the prior state court case. He argues, however, that the specific allegations underlying his present lawsuit were "never given any due attention and stripped of [their] validity" by the state court.
There is no support for plaintiff's arguments. Plaintiff filed his third and fourth amended complaints on January 24, 1997, and April 28, 1997, respectively. The Kent County Circuit Court did not receive notice: of plaintiff's acceptance of the mediation award until January 2, 1998, and the order of dismissal was entered several days later on January 8, 1998. It is clear, therefore, that plaintiff's factual allegations of discrimination based on disability and constructive discharge were before the state court prior to dismissal. Plaintiff accepted the $200,000 mediation award and stipulated to dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice as to "all complaints, amended complaints, and all counts of each." He may not now complain that the state court did not reach the merits of his claims.
Plaintiff's further objections are without merit for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Scoville's report and recommendation. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED over objection . Defendant Spartan Stores' first motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) shall be GRANTED and plaintiff Wilson's complaint shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant Spartan Stores' second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22) shall be DISMISSED AS MOOT. A judgment order consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue forthwith.
JUDGMENT ORDER
In accordance with the Court's memorandum opinion of even date,
IT IS ORDERED that: defendant Spartan Stores' first motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Spartan Stores' second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.