The Honor able Ha rold A. Ac kerma

n, Senior United States District J udg e for the District * of Ne w J erse y , sitti ng by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 08a0439n.06 Filed: Jul y

25, 2008 No. 07-1889 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT F loyd E dw ard s, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. UAW Nat’l F ord De p’t, The United Automobile, Aer ospace and Ag ricultural Implement Workers of Amer ica; Public Review B oard, International Union, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : KEI TH, SUTTON, Circ uit J udg es; and ACKERMAN, D istrict J udg e. * DA MO N J . KEI TH , Circ uit Judg e . Pl a int if f- Ap pe lla nt F loyd E dw ard s ( “ Ed

wa rd s” ) a pp e a ls the dismissal of his c l ai m o n summary judgme nt, contests the sanc tions im posed on Edwa rds’s attorney pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 11, and cla ims that he is entitled to damag es under Title VI Iof the Civil R ights Ac t of 1964. Be cause the district court did not err in determining that there was no g enuine dispute of material fa ct and be cause this Court does not have jurisdiction over the rema ining iss ue s, we AF F I RM. I . Ba ckg round On J uly 12, 2006, Edwar ds filed in Way ne County

Circuit Court the in s t an t suit entitl ed “Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damag es and/or Other Equitable Re lief; and/or f or Enfor ceme nt ofNo. 07-1889

Ed war ds v . U AW Nat l F or d D e pt, e t al

. Pag e 2

The pre cise nature of E dwar ds’s claim is unclea r. 1 Collective Ba

rg aining Ag ree ment.” (J.A. 12.) The suit claimed: “Count 1 - Discr imination: Union Bia s”; “C o u n t 2 - Collusion wit h Manag ement”; “ Count 3 - Specific Er ror of Fa ct; Br eac h of Contract.” (J.A. 13-15.) Edwar ds’s suit wa s remove d to f eder al court on J uly 31, 2006. On J une 1 12, 2007, the d i s trict court g rante d Def endants’ motions for summar y judgme nt and re fer

red the matter of sanctions to a

mag istrate judg e. Edwards v. UAW Nat’l Ford Dep’t , 2007 WL 1695715 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2007) (“ Ed war ds I ”). A fter a h ea ri ng , the mag istrate judg e issued a r eport
rec ommending sanctions of $11,394.75 to be paid by Edwar ds’s attorney
. The district cour t issued
an order on Aug ust 16, 2007, a dopting the ma g istrate judg e’s r ecommendation. Edwards v. UAW Nat’l Ford Dep’t , 2007 WL 2907360 (E.D. Mich. Aug ust 16, 2007). The particula

r fa ctual cir cumstance s leadingto the curr ent ac tion were never set forth by Edwar ds at any

time during these procee dings, so this Court relies on those f acts outlined by

the district court. Edwa

rds is an African- Americ an male who had worked for For d Motor Company

and its spin-off, Visteon, for ove r for ty y ear s. As a re sult of company downs i z i n g, E d wa rds was transfe rre d to a diffe rent job, the duties of w hich he f ailed to perform in a satisfa ctory fashion. Edwar ds, after

an extended tra ining a

nd testing period, was eventua lly transfe rre d to a slig htly lower pa id p os iti on

tha t he c ould perf

orm pr of ic ie ntl y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c ha ra c te ri zed the e ve nts
surr ound inghis tr ans fe r a s f oll ow s: 1. Transfer and train i ng. Edwar ds transfe rre d from his Depa rtment 38 job-setter position to a Depa rtment 39 job-setter position on October 29, 2001 whe n the compan y

downsized Depar

tment 38. Edwards’ [s] work c hang ed fr om making bear ing r ace cups in De p ar t m ent 38 to making spider u-joints in Depar tment 39. Whe n h e fi rs t tr ans fe rr e d, Ed wa rd s w a s p la c e d o n th e night sh if t and pa ir e d w ithNo. 07-1889

Ed war ds v . U AW Nat l F or d D e pt, e t al

. Pag e 3
an o th e r

jo b

- s e tt e r

to f a c il it a te E dw ar d s ’ [s ] tr a in in g in h is n e w a s s ig n me n t. [] J ob-setter training usually

require s “no more tha

n 2

- 3 w e e k s . ” [] T y

p ic a lly , the company allows an employ ee up to 60 day s to be come proficie nt. [] After Edwar ds ha d b e e nin th e n e w a s s ig n me n t f

o r a p p r o xim a te ly

f o u r mo n th s , th e company deter mined th a t E d w a r d s h a d n o t de veloped the know ledg e and pr oficienc y nece ssary to do his job wit hout assistance. The company transfe rre d Edwar ds to the day shift to work with knowledg eable job-setters in an e ffor t t o b ri n g his perfor

mance to an adequate level. Af

ter Edwa rds w orked a

nd trained f

or seve ral months on the day s h if t, th e c o mp an y

te s te d h is a b il it y to p e r f o r m t h e jo b

- s e tt e r

w o r k
. [] 2. Testing and di

squali fication. Edwar ds failed the tests. During a June 5, 2002 UAW evaluation, Edwa rds was “ stopped three separ ate times”—“ once f or not following the prope r seque nce, o n ce fo r s afety . . . and once ag ain for c reating a n i mp ro p er m o v e”

— an d

“w as n o tab l e t o s u cc es s fu l l y co mp l et e t h e t as k
. ” [ ] Du ri n g a June 11 , 20 02 te st by mana g e me nt, mon ito re d by the un ion , E dw ard s w a s a sk e d to chang e g rinding whee ls and s et u p m achinery for pr oduction. Edwar ds neede d as s i s t an ce an d t o o k o n e h o u r an d 2 5 m i nu t es t o co mp l et e a t as k wh i ch o nt h e “ h i gh sid e ” sh ou ld h a ve take n o ne ho ur wi tho ut a ssi sta nc e . [] D ur ing a

July 23 , 2 00 2 te st by manag ement of Edw ards’ [s] ability to chang e the dimensions of a n end g rinder, monitored by

the uni on, Edwar ds chipped two g rinding whee ls and another job-setter h a d to f in is h th e a s s ig n e d

ta s k
. [] Ba sed on Edwa

rds’[s] “inability

to perfor

m the job wi thout significa nt assistance ,” the company disqualified hi m as a job-se tter on Jul y 30, 2002. Edwar ds transfe rre d to a position as Depar tment 249 c leane r. [] As a c leane r, Edwa rds ea rned $ 2 2
. 6 1 p e r h o u r , 6 2 ¢ an h o u r l e s s t h an t h e r a t e h e e ar n e d a s a j o b

- s e tt e r . [] D e p artm e n t 3 9 w a s “ e li mi n a te d a f e w mo n th s a f

te r E dw ar d s w a s d is qu a li f

ie d
. ” [] 3. The gri evance. UAW L ocal 228 f iled a g rieva

nce on Aug ust 1, 2002 challeng ing the disqualification, re questing Edwar ds’[s] restoration to the job-setter a s s ig n me n t, a

“ ma k e w h o le ” remedy , an d

th a t E dw ar d s “ c o n ti nu e h is tr a in in g . ” [] Th e c omp any

de nie d th e g ri e va

nc e , re sp on din g that the c omp any c omp lie d with its contr a c t o b li g a ti o n s an d d id mo r e , g iv in g E dw ar d s s e v e nmo n th s o f tr a in ing time—which was “ unusually leng thy ”—and a ccommodating Edwar ds with training plans, assistance from prof icient job-setters, and transfe r to the day shift (at the nig ht shift premium rate ) to f

acilitate his tra ining. Despite this, the company responde d, Edwar ds was unable to demonstrate the require d proficie ncy and could not per form th e jo b w it

h o u t “ s ig n if

ic an t a s s is ta

n c e . ” [] Ed war ds I , 2007 WL 1695715, at *1-2. S i n ce t h e fi l i n g o f h i s gri ev an ce , E dwa rd s m ad e anu mb er o f a d d i t i o n al ef

fo rt s t o ch al l en ge his transfer

including: (1) a state court rac e and a g e discrimination lawsuit which wa s dismis sed andNo. 07-1889

Ed war ds v . U AW Nat l F or d D e pt, e t al

. Pag e 4 not appea led, Edwards et. al . v. Ford Motor Co. et al , Way ne County

Circuit Court 02-238370; (2) an unfa ir labor pr actice char g e, which the National L abor Relations Boar d (“N L RB”) dismiss ed and for whic h the NL RB in Washington, D.C., denie d Edwar ds’s appeal ; (3 ) an ag e discrimination char g e, which he later w ithdrew, with the Michig an De partment of Civil Rights (“MD CR”); (4) another char g e, which w as dismissed, with the M DCR; (5) a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 rac e discrimination lawsuit which wa s dismis sed on summary judgme nt; ( 6) an unsucc essful appe al to the International Exe c uti ve B oa

rd o f the UA W fo r t

he UA W loc a l’ s d e c isi on to w ith dr aw i ts g ri e va

nc e pr ior to arbitration; and (7) an unsuc cessf ul appea l to the Publi c ReviewBoa rd (“ PRB ”)
. Se e Ed

war ds I , 2007 WL 1695715, at *2-4. I I . Summary J udg ment Ed wa rd s argue s o n a

pp e a l th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in g ra nti ng su mm ary ju dg me nt t o defe ndants UAW and the Public Review Boa rd (“ PRB”) be cause “ther e ar e many issues, and there is ge nuineness of the issue s as t o many materia l fac ts, and the moving party is not entitl ed to any judgme nts as a matter

of law.” Appellant’s B rief at 8. Th is C ourt

re vie ws de novo a district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt. Garrish v. UAW , 417 F.3d 590, 594 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Summary judgme nt is proper whe re “ the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and an y af fi d avits show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l f act and that the movant is e ntitled to judgme nt a s a matter of law.” F ed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c);

see also M

atsushita Elec

. Indus. Co. v

. Zenith Radio Cor p. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct . 1348, 89 L .E d. 2d 53 8 ( 19 86 ). I n e va lua

tin g wh e the r t

he re is a g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l fa c t, the Court mus t

“ vie w the e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he no n- mov ingpa

rt y , d ra wing a ll r e a so na

bleNo. 07-1889

Ed war ds v . U AW Nat l F or d D e pt, e t al

. Pag e 5 infere nces in that pa

rty ’s favor.” Sagan v. United States , 342 F.3d 493, 497 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt t o d e fe ndant s because Ed wa rd s “ fa ile d to g ener ate a ny dispute as to the fa cts of the c ase,” did “not cite to any evidenc e, case law , or exhibit s,”
an d “ c o n d u c te d n o d is c o v e r

y in th is c a se.” Ed

war ds I , 2007 WL 1695715, at *5. Even a fter the district c ourt’s admonishment, Edwa rds’s ar g uments on appea l consist of nothing more than a se t of c on c lus or

y a lle g a tio ns that are su pp orted by ne ith e r f a c ts n or law. Th e e nti re ty

of his ana ly sis
re a ds a s f oll ow s: 1. Transfer and trai ning: T h e c o mp an y’ s a l l e g a t i o n s ar e m e r e l y a prete nse and a

re pr etextual for a blata

nt form of discr imination. 2. Testing and disqual ification: Th e s elf-serving tests were biased a b ini tio and a ime d at a

re su lt o f h ara ssi ngPla int if f- Ap pe lla nt. At the time the se tests w ere administered, Plaintiff-A ppellant alre ady had such a g reat amount of seniority with the company , that there was a total lack of purp os e fo r s a id t e sts and la c k o f a ny ratio na l ba sis
. 3. The grievanc e: Plaintiff-Appellant ha d a valid g rieva nce which was filed. 4. The first uns ucce ssful law suit was due to t h e fact that Plaint iff’s attorney did not appear at hearing. 5. Re: NLRB action filed : Neit h er Plaintiff nor counsel ha s actua l knowledg e as to this complaint or dec ision. 6. Edwards civil rights charges: Civil ri gh ts charg es ar e neither succe ssful nor unsucc ess fu l , t h e claimant her e mer ely stated the fa cts. The c ourt states that there was no re course . 7. W ithdrawal of union griev ance: This is meaning less beca use it may no t be pr e sumed th at th e un ion did no t pr e ssu

re Ap pe lla

nt i nto wi thd

ra wi nghis g rieva nce. 8. ReIE

B A pp e al: Mr. Edwar ds had some very valid issues here that wer e not considere d. Ag ain, the writer suspects that Appellant may not have ha d objective c onsideration. 9. Re sec ond lawsuit : Th e fa c ts g ive n a re no t c or re c t. 10. PRB proce edings: These a re c urre ntly

being challeng ed. Appellant’s B rief at 11-12. Take n toge ther, Edwards has not presented a coher ent ar g ument relatingNo. 07-1889

Ed war ds v . U AW Nat l F or d D e pt, e t al

. Pag e 6 to the question at hand—whe ther there exis ts a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t that merits reve rsal of summary judgme nt. Ba sed on our re view of the rec ord and a pplicable law , we se e no er ror in the district court’s decision, and AF FI RM the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of de fe nd ants
. I I I . Sanctions This Court does not ha

ve jurisdiction ove r Edwar ds’s appea l of sanctions beca use he fa iled to file a notice of a

ppeal f rom the district court’ s August 16, 2007 order imposing sanctions. Even if we h ad jurisdiction, moreove r, Edwa rds waive d his right to cha lleng e the sa nctions decision by failing to object to the mag istrate’s r ecommendat i o n . T h e magistrate judge , who re commended gra n t i n g s an ct i o n s o nJ u l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , wa rn edE dwa rd s o f t h e n ee d t o s ee k re v i ew , s t at i n g: The pa rties to this action may

object to and se ek re view of t h i s R ep o rt and Re c o mm e n d a ti o n , b u t ar e r e qu ir e d to a c t w it h in te n ( 1 0 ) d ay s o f s e r

v ic e of a c opy here of as pr ovided for in 2 8 U. S
. C . § 636(b)( 1) and E.D . Mich. L R 72.1(d)(2)
. F a ilure to f

ile sp e c if ic ob je c tio ns c on sti tut e s a wa ive r of any fu rt he r ri g ht o f a

pp e a l. Tho ma s v . A rn , 4 7 4 U
. S
. 1 4 0 ( 19 85 ); How ard v. Sec retary of HHS , 932 F.2d 505, 50 8 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 1) ; Un ite d S

tates v . W alte rs , 638 F.2d 947, 949- 50 (6th Cir. 1981). (J.A. 415.) Edwards ne ver appea led within the ten day period, and the district court issued its order adopting the mag istrate’s r ecommendation of sanctions on Aug ust 16, 2007. Edwar ds thus waived his right to appe al the aw ard of sanctions over the issue. Sp e nc e r v . B ou c ha rd , 449 F.3d 721, 724 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) (“ A p art

y wh o r e c e ive s . . . no tic e [re qu ir ing ob je c tio ns to b e fi le d w ith in t e n d ay s] y e t f a ils to t ime ly

ob je c t is de e me d to wa ive re vie w o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a do pti on of the ma g istrate jud g e ’s re c omm e nd atio ns .” ); Un ite d S tates v . W

alte rs , 638 F.2d 947, 949- 50 (6th Cir. 1981). There fore , this Court wil l take no fur ther a ction with reg ard to this question.No. 07-1889

Ed war ds v . U AW Nat l F or d D e pt, e t al

. Pag e 7 IV
. T i t l e V II Simi larl y , this Co ur

t do e s n ot h a ve jur isd ic tio n o ve r E dw ard ’s a lle g e d T itl e VI Ic la im beca use Edwa

rd s n ev er fi l ed a Title VI Iclaim. I t is elemental that our Court does not have jur isd ic tio n o ve r c la ims that ha ve ne ve r b e e n f

ile d. Th is Cour

t w ill take no fu

rt he r a c tio n o n th is question. V. Conclusion F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM.