Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fields v. Von Drehle Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

July 9, 2019

DAMON EMIL FIELDS, Plaintiff,
v.
VON DREHLE CORPORATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          DAVID S. CAYER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's “Second Amended Motion to Dismiss” (document #15) and pro se Plaintiff's “Motion for Leave to File [Third] Amended Complaint” (document #18).

         These Motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file a third amended complaint and respectfully recommend that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted as discussed below.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed his formbook Complaint checking the box for every type of employment discrimination. The Complaint contained minimal supporting facts and no allegation of damages. Plaintiff attached his administrative charge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The charge shows that Plaintiff alleged only disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq… The Complaint named Plaintiff's employer and two supervisors as Defendants.

         In ruling on Plaintiff's “Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis” (document #2), the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. found that the claims against the supervisors were “frivolous under [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(e)(2).” “Order” at 3 (document #3). Nevertheless, in each of his Amended Complaints, Plaintiff has persisted in asserting an ADA claim against those individual Defendants.

         On March 27, 2019, Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss (document #7).

         On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a one-page Amended Complaint (document #10).

         On April 12, 2019, Defendant filed an amended Motion to Dismiss (document #11).

         On May 1, 2019, Judge Cogburn entered an Order mooting Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and allowing Plaintiff twenty days to file a second amended complaint. Document #13.

         The Order stated that:

Plaintiff must submit a completed Amended Complaint in accordance with this order. That is, in his Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff should file on a form used for Title VII actions, Plaintiff must name all defendants he wishes to sue, and he must assert all claims he wishes to bring in this action. The Court advises Plaintiff, however, that he will not be given unlimited opportunities to amend his Complaint. Furthermore, the Court advises Plaintiff that, when amending his Complaint, he should consider the arguments made in Defendant's first motion to dismiss, as Defendant correctly pointed out inadequacies in the original Complaint, such as the fact that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.