William Donald Lenell Sheppard v. Upper Crust Food Service

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed William Donald Lenell Sheppard’s amended complaint. The court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly connect the plaintiff’s termination and alleged disparate treatment or retaliation to his race or sex under Title VII.

Holdings

1. A district court must conduct de novo review of the portions of a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation to which a party makes specific objections, including articulated objections by a pro se litigant.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible Title VII discrimination or wrongful-termination claim because it did not allege facts connecting the adverse employment action to plaintiff's race or sex.
3. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible Title VII retaliation claim because it did not adequately allege protected activity causally connected to an adverse employment action.
4. A complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) when it is frivolous or fails to state a claim, and plaintiff's amended complaint warranted dismissal under that screening standard.
5. The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim was treated as voluntarily dismissed because plaintiff did not address it in his objection and omitted it from the amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that plaintiff's termination or other adverse employment action occurred because of his race or sex in violation of Title VII.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a Title VII retaliation claim.
3. Whether the amended complaint was frivolous or failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4. Whether the unaddressed North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim should be treated as voluntarily dismissed.

Disposition

dismissed