Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Clark County School District

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 1, 2015

Sherrie Johnson, Plaintiff
v.
Clark County School District, Defendant

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 13], STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. 7], AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS RACE AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge

Pro se plaintiff Sherrie Johnson sued the Clark County School District for, inter alia, alleged race and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.[1] After screening her complaint, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach concluded that Johnson had failed to state a claim for either race or disability discrimination, and directed her to file an amended complaint to cure these deficiencies.[2] Johnson amended her complaint as requested and Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommends that I strike the amended complaint because Johnson did not cure the defects outlined in the screening order and dismiss Johnson's race- and disability-discrimination claims with prejudice, and permit her case to proceed only on plaintiffs retaliation, age-discrimination, and religious-discrimination claims in the original complaint.

Johnson filed a one-page "objection" that states, in its entirety, 'in all do respect Dear Judge I Sherrie Johnson object to the race discrimination claim."[3] Clark County filed no response.

When a party files specific written objections to a United States magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, [4] the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made.[5] The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.[6] The standard of review for the unobjected-to portions of the report and recommendation is left to the district judge's discretion.[7] Moreover, "no review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed, "[8]and this district's Local Rule IB 3-2(b) requires de novo consideration of specific objections only.[9]

Johnson's one-line objection to the "race discrimination claim" is unduly oblique and requires no consideration, as she offers no basis for her disagreement with Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's recommendation. Having reviewed Johnson's original and amended complaint, and agree with Magistrate Judge Ferenbach that Johnson has not stated a cognizable race-discrimination claim.

Despite the fact that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach clearly explained the legal deficiencies in her original race-discrimination claim and gave her an opportunity to correct it, [10] Johnson did not allege, for exmple, how Clark County treated similarly situated employees outside of Johnson's protected class more favorably than her.[11]

Conclusion

Accordingly, and with good cause appearing, It is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach*s report and recommendation [Doc. 13] is ADOPTED in its entirety and Johnson's objections [Doc. 14] are overruled.

It is FURTHER ORDERED Johnson's race- and disability-discrimination claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Johnson's amended complaint [Doc. 7] is STRICKEN. This case proceeds only on plaintiffs retaliation, age-discrimination, and religious-discrimination claims as stated in the original complaint.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.