Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02722/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02722-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD KA’ANOI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DRMS DIRECTOR LT. GEN. ROBERT T.

DAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:07-cv-02722 JKS EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff, a retired federal employee proceeding in propria persona, seeks to sue the director

of his former employer, the Defense Reutilization Marketing Service (“DRMS”), and certain of its

employees for employment discrimination, retaliation, interference with his freedom of speech and

his right to equality in a public place. Defendants have moved the Court for partial dismissal. 

Docket Nos. 14 (Mot.); 14-2 (Mem.); 17 (Opp’n); 19 (Reply). The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On July 18, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Docket No. 23. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

As no objection was made to the findings of fact, the Court assumes their correctness and

decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir.

1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley

Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file and found the

Case 2:07-cv-02722-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 09/10/08 Page 1 of 2
ORDER

2

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis,

the Court finds dismissal appropriate. 

The law is clear that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for a federal employee’s claims of

workplace discrimination based on race or disability unless plaintiff has alleged conduct amounting

to a highly personal violation. See Brock v. United States, 64 F.3d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the unfair treatment in the workplace alleged by

Ka’anoi does not constitute a highly personal violation. Title VII is thus his only remedy. It is also

clear that Defendant Dail, as the Director of DRMS is the only proper defendant in a Title VII action

alleging discrimination on account of race or disability. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); see also

Vinieratos v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 939 F.2d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 1991); Mahoney v. U.S. Postal

Serv., 884 F.2d 1194, 1196 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 18, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal at Docket No. 14 is GRANTED;

3. Defendants Clifford R. Kerr and Roger Waring are dismissed; and,

4. Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are dismissed.

Dated this the 9th day of September 2008.

 /s/ James K. Singleton, Jr. 

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:07-cv-02722-JKS-EFB Document 26 Filed 09/10/08 Page 2 of 2