From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ENADEGHE v. RYLA TELESERVICES, INC.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Feb 2, 2010
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:08-CV-3551-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

determining that pro se plaintiff's complaints did not constitute protected activity under Title VII's opposition clause where Plaintiff failed to allege that her underlying complaints about noise and touching were related to race

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Shinseki
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:08-CV-3551-TWT.

February 2, 2010

ORDER

THOMAS THRASH JR., District Judge

This is an employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 27] of the Magistrate Judge recommending granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. 23]. The Plaintiff's Objections do not address the merits of the Defendant's motion or the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the judgment of the Court. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

ENADEGHE v. RYLA TELESERVICES, INC.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Feb 2, 2010
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:08-CV-3551-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

determining that pro se plaintiff's complaints did not constitute protected activity under Title VII's opposition clause where Plaintiff failed to allege that her underlying complaints about noise and touching were related to race

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Shinseki

dismissing a pro se employment discrimination action "[b]ecause Plaintiff's Complaint still fails to state a claim after being given a chance to amend her Complaint to correct the deficiencies in the Complaint"

Summary of this case from Bolden v. Asbury Auto. Grp.

dismissing plaintiff's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims where "[s]imilar to the Plaintiff's previously filed Complaint, the Amended Complaint contains only conclusory allegations of an alleged wrong."

Summary of this case from Bolden v. Asbury Auto. Grp.

dismissing retaliation claim where plaintiff failed to allege that decisionmaker had knowledge of protected activity

Summary of this case from Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R.
Case details for

ENADEGHE v. RYLA TELESERVICES, INC.

Case Details

Full title:SHELIA C. ENADEGHE, Plaintiff, v. RYLA TELESERVICES, INC., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

Date published: Feb 2, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:08-CV-3551-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

Citing Cases

Uppal v. Hospital Corporation of America

08 WL 3864439 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2008) (rejecting retaliation claim by employee who complained about a…

Rogers v. Shinseki

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (defining protected activity under Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) (defining…

7 Citing Cases