1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JACQUELINE CAMILLE 

SEDWICK,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

DENIS RICHARD McDONOUGH, 

Secretary, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 3:22-cv-02321-S-BT

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In her Amended Complaint, pro se Plaintiff Jaqueline Camille Sedwick 

brings employment discrimination claims under Title VII against Denis Richard 

McDonough, Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 

and several individual VA employees.1 Although Defendant McDonough did not 

oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint, he did not know she intended 

to name individual VA employees as additional defendants. Accordingly, 

Defendant McDonough filed a Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants and 

Amend Caption (ECF No. 44). Plaintiff did not file a response or otherwise 

oppose the Motion. The Court should GRANT the Motion.

1 These individuals are Kimberly Coleman-Prier, Gregory Guillermo, Alicia 

Wright, Nicole Giles, Rocky Watkins, Dr. Stephen R. Holt, Froylan Garza, 

Thomas Lane, Josh Odom, Colleen Ewing, Joyce Johnston, Kenrick Brown, and 

Elizabeth Daniels. 

Case 3:22-cv-02321-S-BT Document 66 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 632
2

Under Title VII, the only proper defendant in a civil action by a federal 

employee is the head of the department, agency, or unit. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). 

Here, Plaintiff is a VA employee. Thus, Defendant McDonough, as the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs, is the only proper defendant in this Title VII action against 

her employer. The Court should GRANT Defendant McDonough’s Motion and 

DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants except Denis 

Richard McDonough. Reyna v. Donley, 479 F. App’x 609, 611 (5th Cir. 2012) 

(affirming dismissal of individual employee as defendant in federal employee’s 

Title VII action and citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)).

SO RECOMMENDED.

January 10, 2024

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and 

recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being 

served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in 

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed 

determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or 

refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-02321-S-BT Document 66 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 633