Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00927/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00927-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

LA CORA GRIFFIN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2:13cv927WKW-WC 

 ) 

FOOD GIANTS SUPERMARKET, ) 

INC., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRTATE JUDGE 

 Plaintiff filed this Complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, alleging harassment and retaliation. While conducting this court’s mandated 

review pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court determined that all of 

the individual defendants named in the complaint appeared to be improperly 

named as defendants, as “[t]he relief granted under Title VII is against the 

employer, not individual employees whose actions would constitute a violation of 

the act.” Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991). Thus, the 

court made Plaintiff aware of the issue and asked her to show cause as to why the 

individual defendants should not be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 8) 

to the show cause, which was unresponsive to the issue of whether the individual 

defendants were proper parties to this suit. 

Case 2:13-cv-00927-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 3
 Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge that the individual defendants named in this action be DISMISSED as 

improper parties under this Title VII action, and this case be referred back to the 

undersigned for further proceedings. 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before March 24, 2014, the parties may file 

objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify 

the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District 

Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the 

court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in 

the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo 

determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and 

shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the 

Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds 

of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 

1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also 

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

Case 2:13-cv-00927-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 3
binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down 

prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

 Done this 10th day of March, 2014. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00927-WKW-WC Document 10 Filed 03/10/14 Page 3 of 3