United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
J. Conrad, Jr.United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 43),
and the related pleadings; the Magistrate Judge's
Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc.
No. 48); Plaintiff's objections, responses and letters
related to the Magistrate Judge's M&R, (Doc. Nos. 49,
50, 53-56); and Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's M&R, (Doc. No.
Plaintiff filed several objections, responses, and letters
related to the Magistrate Judge's M&R (Doc. Nos. 49,
50, 53-56). As part of these filings, Plaintiff continues to
assert she has submitted all required documents and proof of
discrimination against her, and further requests the Court
review all relevant facts and evidence presented by
Plaintiff. See (Doc. Nos. 49, 55). Nevertheless,
after a close review of Plaintiff's contentions, the
Court adopts the factual and procedural background as set
forth in the M&R.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters,
including motions to dismiss, to a magistrate judge for
“proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Federal Magistrate
Act provides that “a district court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. at §
636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). De novo review is not
required by the statute when an objecting party makes only
general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court
to a specific error in the magistrate judge's
recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44
(4th Cir. 1982). Further, the statute does not on its face
require any review at all of issues that are not the subject
of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); Camby, 178 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a
district judge is responsible for the final determination and
outcome of the case, and accordingly this Court has conducted
a careful review of the Magistrate Judge's M&R.
existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue
the court must address before considering the merits of the
case. Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d
417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has the burden of proving
that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
lawsuit. See Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.
Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).
Where, as here, a defendant challenges subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), “the district
court is to regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the
issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings
without converting the proceeding to one for summary
judgment.” Id. Therefore, the district court
should grant the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss “only
if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and
the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of
considering Defendant's Motion, the Court remains mindful
of Plaintiff's pro se status and that pro se filings are
to be liberally construed and must be held to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976) (citations omitted).
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
district court judge shall make a de novo determination of
any portion of an M&R to which a specific written
objection has been made. A party's failure to make a
timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Here, while Plaintiff
has objected to the M&R in form, Plaintiff has failed to
directly and specifically respond to the M&R.
See (Doc. Nos. 49, 50, 53-56). Plaintiff simply and
repeatedly requests the Court to reconsider and rule in her
favor. See (Doc. Nos. 49, 50, 53-56). This Court has
conducted a full and de novo review of the M&R and other
documents of record and, having done so, hereby adopts the
M&R and grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Court agrees with both the Defendant and the Magistrate Judge
that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking in this case. A
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if the
plaintiff's claim following the filing of an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission charge is outside the scope
of said charge. Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551
F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting the scope of a
plaintiff's right to file a federal lawsuit is determined
by the charge, which must be sufficiently precise to describe
generally the actions or practices of which are complained).
the two-plus years this case has dragged on, this Court has
repeatedly requested valid copies of a Notice of Right to Sue
and a Charge of Discrimination within the scope of
Plaintiff's claims in this suit. (Doc. Nos. 17, 40).
Despite Plaintiff's four different opportunities to do
so, (Doc. Nos. 16, 18, 21, 41), Plaintiff's latest
Amended Complaint yet again fails to satisfy the Court's
request. (Doc. No. 41). Instead, Plaintiff continues to make
broad requests for a trial by jury, that this Court review
all facts and evidence submitted throughout this case, and
that this Court add negligence claims against the Defendant.
(Doc. Nos. 49, 50, 53, 56). The Court has been lenient with
Plaintiff and given her more than ample opportunities to
remedy deficiencies in her complaints. Yet, the same results
continue-inadequate complaints and requests for further
amendment and greater leniency.
this court, like the Magistrate Judge, liberally construes
pro se Plaintiff's most recent Amended Complaint as
incorporating by reference her previously filed Charge and
Notice of Right to Sue No. 430-2015-00995, (Doc. No. 8-1),
the Charge is still outside the scope of Plaintiff's
claims in this suit. (Doc. No. 41). Plaintiff's Charge
No. 430-2015-00995 is based on alleged retaliation for a
previously filed EEOC charge in 2013. (Doc. No. 8-1). The
most recent Amended Complaint, on the other hand, includes
little, if any, factual support for Plaintiff's claims,
and asserts that this Court has jurisdiction based on
“the Civil Rights Act, the American Disabilities Act of
2008 . . . and The Age Discrimination Act.” (Doc. No.
41). Because the allegations here are outside the scope of
the Charge and Notice of Right to Sue, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.