United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
S. CAYER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's “Motion
to Dismiss” (document #6) and “Memorandum in
Support …” (document #7) filed December 22,
January 4, 2018, the Court entered an “Order”
“[i]n accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) … advis[ing] Plaintiff,
who is proceeding pro se, that he has a right to
respond to Defendant's Motion. The Court also advise[d]
Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant
being granted the relief he seeks, that is, the DISMISSAL OF
THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.” Document #8 (emphasis in
Court “allow[ed] until February 4, 2018 [for Plaintiff]
to respond to Defendant's ‘Motion to Dismiss'
…” with three days for mailing. Id.
That same day, the Clerk's office mailed a copy of the
Order to Plaintiff.
January 9, 2018, Plaintiff responded with a document
captioned “Objection to Roseboro Order …”
in which he challenged removal of this matter from state
court. Document #9. Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion
matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and this Motion is now
ripe for the Court's consideration.
fully considered the arguments, the record, and the
applicable authority, the undersigned respectfully recommends
that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted,
as discussed below.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
the factual allegations of the Complaint as true, this is an
action alleging unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title
VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29
U.S.C. § 621, et. seq. (“ADEA”).
Plaintiff brings this action against his former supervisor
November 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in
Mecklenburg County Superior Court alleging Title VII and ADEA
claims, as well as state law claims pursuant to the North
Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 143-422 et seq. (“NCEEPA”), the North
Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act, §
95-241, (“REDA”), and a common law claim for
December 14, 2017, Defendant removed the matter to this
Court. Removal was proper based upon federal question
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (district courts have
subject matter jurisdiction in every civil action that
"arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States”); Battle v. Seibels Bruce Ins.
Co., 288 F.3d 596, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal
December 22, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that he
has no liability under Title VII, the ADEA or the NCEEPA.