United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Kendall A. Jackson, Plaintiff,
MC Express, Inc., et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHKEL L. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Non-Final Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). (Dkt. 28). The
R&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant Radiant
Logistics' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4), deny Defendant MC
Express's Motion to Dismiss, Alternatively Motion to
Prohibit Use of Pleadings (Dkt. 23), and grant Defendant MC
Express's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 26).
reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district
court “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). “Parties filing objections to a
magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically
identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive,
or general objections need not be considered by the district
court.” United States v. Shultz, 565 F.3d
1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009). Absent proper objections, the
Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
January 29, 2018, Plaintiff Kendall Jackson filed his
complaint, alleging that his employer, Defendant MC Express,
discriminated against him based on race. See Dkt. 1.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant MC Express
retaliated against him when he filed an EEOC charge, and that
Defendant MC Express wrongfully terminated his employment.
Id. Plaintiff claims that Defendant MC Express's
conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Id.
Plaintiff also names Radiant Logistics as a defendant,
asserting that Defendant Radiant is the “parent
company” of Defendant MC Express. Dkt. 1 at 9.
March 6, 2018, Defendant Radiant filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims against it, arguing that Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against it and Plaintiff fails to
allege sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of
personal jurisdiction over it. (Dkt. 4). The next day,
Defendant MC Express filed its answer to the complaint. (Dkt.
5). Because of some uncertainty over whether Defendants
properly served their responses to the complaint on Plaintiff
via U.S. Mail, the Magistrate Judge entered an order
directing Defendants to mail Plaintiff a copy of every
pleading and motion that Defendants file - via U.S. Mail and
email. (Dkt. 8). And the Court allowed Plaintiff additional
time to respond to Defendant Radiant's motion to dismiss.
4, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, without
Defendants' consent and without leave of court. (Dkt.
20). On May 11, 2018, Defendant MC Express filed a motion to
dismiss, alternatively, motion to prohibit use of pleadings.
(Dkt. 24). In that motion, Defendant MC Express sought
dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint because Plaintiff
failed to comply with certain filing deadlines set forth in
the federal and local rules. (Dkt. 23). Defendant MC Express
further argued that if the Court did not dismiss the entire
complaint, it should prohibit the use of Plaintiff's
untimely filings. Id. Plaintiff responded to
Defendant's motion on May 14, 2018. (Dkt. 25).
15, 2018, Defendant MC Express filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint because Plaintiff could not
amend as of right, and Plaintiff failed to obtain either the
Court's leave to amend or Defendants' consent to file
the amended complaint. (Dkt. 26).
31, 2018, that Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
grant Defendant Radiant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 4),
deny Defendant MC Express's motion to dismiss,
alternatively motion to prohibit use of pleadings (Dkt. 23),
and grant Defendant MC Express's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. 26). (Dkt 28). On
June 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R.
(Dkt. 33). In his objections, Plaintiff challenges the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant MC Express
and Defendant Radiant did not act as joint employers.
Id. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's R&R.
Defendant Radiant's Motion to Dismiss
Radiant moved to dismiss the claims against it, under Rule
12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), for failure to state a claim and for
lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. 4). In its motion,
Defendant Radiant argues that because the complaint contains
little-to-no factual allegations against it, Plaintiff has
failed to plausibly state a claim for relief. Dkt. 4-1 at
2-5. Further, Defendant Radiant contends that Plaintiff's
complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support
personal jurisdiction over it. Id. at 5-6.
R&R, the Magistrate Judge noted - correctly - that the
complaint does not contain any “factual allegations
whatsoever concerning discriminatory or retaliatory conduct
by Radiant or its employees, nor does it allege that any
unlawful conduct occurred on Radiant property.” Dkt. 28
at 13. Further, the Magistrate Judge recognized that
“Plaintiff does not allege that he had any contact with
Radiant regarding his employment or any other matter while he
was still employed with MC Express.” Id.
Plaintiff only alleges that Defendant Radiant is Defendant MC
Express's parent company. Id. (citing Dkt. 1 at
light of Plaintiff's failure to plead any facts to
suggest that Radiant employed Plaintiff - or acted as a joint
employer with Defendant MC Express - the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissing Plaintiff's claim against
Defendant Radiant for failure to “allege a plausible
claim that Radiant was his employer.” Dkt. 28 at 15. In
his objections, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Radiant was,
in fact, his joint employer with Defendant MC Express.
See Dkt. 33. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that
Defendant Radiant Logistics performs human-resources
services, as well as technical and training services, for
Defendant MC Express. Id. Although the facts
identified in Plaintiff's objections may be relevant to
the joint-employer analysis if pled in the complaint, they
are not. And, as it stands, Plaintiff's complaint does