United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
ANGELA F. PEEPLES, Plaintiff,
KAISER PERMANENTE THE SOUTHEAST PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K.
Larkins, III's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), recommending that Defendant Kaiser
Permanente The Southeast Permanente Medical Group
(“Defendant” or “TSPMG”) Motion to
Dismiss  be granted, and that this action be dismissed.
Also before the Court are Plaintiff Angela F. Peeples'
(“Plaintiff”) Objections  to the R&R.
November 2008 to early 2015, Plaintiff, who is
African-American, worked as a nurse practitioner in the
oncology department at Defendant's Cumberland Medical
Center (“CMC”). In December 2014, Defendant
informed Plaintiff that her position would be eliminated
“due to the closing of the [CMC's] Cumberland
Infusion Center.” ([1.2] at 179). Although Defendant
“usually retains staff” during department
closures, and Plaintiff applied for jobs at TSPMG's Cobb
Clinic and neurology department, Defendant did not offer
Plaintiff a position in another department or clinic. (
at 5-6). Plaintiff alleges that “all African
American staff [were] laid off” but that Defendant did
not lay off two white employees, a nurse and a pharmacist,
who both worked in the “Cumberland office.” (
alleges she was terminated “after reporting unethical
concerns . . . concerning [herself], staff, and patients,
” including “harassment, ” “sabotage,
” “cliques, ” and “negative
comments” about her. ( at 2, 4). This appears to
include one instance in which a TSPMG employee wrongly told a
patient that Plaintiff never informed the employee of the
patient's visit. ( at 4). Plaintiff also alleges
Defendant failed to provide her with a letter of
recommendation when she was laid off, and did not offer her a
“job coach” to help her transition to a new job.
( at 6).
claims she was subject to three racist remarks from coworkers
at TSPMG. First, during a tuberculosis training session, a
pharmacist remarked, while laughing, that a group of staff
members “look[ed] like a bunch of KKK.” ([1.2] at
117). Second, Plaintiff's supervisor, Dr. Hamrick,
referred to a newly-hired program coordinator, who is white,
as the “new face of oncology.” ([1.2] at
105). Third, when Plaintiff asked a nurse if she
ate collard greens, the nurse said that she did and stated
“we have slaves in Brazil.” ([1.2] at 127). When
Plaintiff later asked the nurse to explain her comment, the
nurse said “she did not finish her story” and
that Plaintiff was “blowing things totally out of
proportion.” ([1.2] at 127).
claims that, on April 9, 2014, she informed Defendant that
she has attention deficient hyperactivity disorder
(“ADHD”). ( at 5-9). Plaintiff states that
her ADHD adversely affected her work, and that Defendant
“failed to offer [her] support.” ( at 5).
Plaintiff states that Dr. Hamrick believed she was depressed,
recommended that she see a TSPMG behavioral health doctor,
and subjected her to “putdowns” about her
“mental status.” ( at 2).
August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Application for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis  (“IFP
Application”). On September 29, 2015, the Magistrate
Judge granted Plaintiff's IFP Application and allowed
Plaintiff's pro se Complaint  to proceed.
(). On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Amended
Complaint , asserting claims, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), for
disability discrimination, race discrimination, a hostile
work environment, and retaliation. ( at 4; [1.1] at 1-2).
September 2, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff did not file a response, and the motion is thus
deemed unopposed. See LR 7.1(B), NDGa. On December
14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R,
recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be
granted, that Plaintiff's ADA claims be dismissed without
prejudice as unexhausted, and that Plaintiff's remaining
claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim. On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Objections
to the R&R. On January 10, 2017, Defendant filed its
response to Plaintiff's Objections, arguing that the
objections should be disregarded because they are (i)
“nonspecific, unsupported and conclusory” and
(ii) assert factual allegations not included in
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. ( at 2-3).
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With
respect to those findings and recommendations to which
objections have not been ...