United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Eric Alan Sanders (“Sanders” or
“Plaintiff”) filed this action pro se against
Defendants Lowe's Home Centers, LLC
(“Lowe's”); the EEOC of Charlotte, NC; John
Hayward; Mike Calzareeta; Doug Ford; and Rayvon Irby alleging
that he was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and a
hostile work environment in violation of the Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e-2000e17, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff also
alleges claims for violation of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for violation of
South Carolina statutory law. (ECF No. 16.)
matter is before the court pursuant to a Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 26) issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett. On September 21, 2015, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
she recommended that the court dismiss Defendant EEOC of
Charlotte, NC (“EEOC”) from the matter
“without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff filed
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, which Objections are presently before the
court. (ECF No. 33.) For the reasons set forth below, the
court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
DISMISSES the EEOC from this matter.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER
August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this
action alleging as follows:
I am also joining as a party the EEOC of Charlotte, NC - a
“public entity” as defined by § 35.104 of
Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations (42 U.S.C. §
12132 and 28 C.F.R. Part 35); furthermore, the EEOC of
Charlotte, NC is a “labor organization” according
to Section 1-13-30(g) of the South Carolina Human Affairs
I am charging the EEOC of Charlotte, NC with intentional and
including, but not limited; refusal to properly investigate
these charges, refusal to acknowledge my charge in writing in
a timely manner; failing/refusal to file for temporary or
preliminary relief pending final disposition of the charge to
protect me from irreparable emotional, refusal to produce a
right to sue letter with sufficient detail to proceed in
District Court and establish proper jurisdiction;
intentionally failing to provide any form of technical
assistance in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 12206 (Section
507) c(1), § 35.130(a) and § 35.134(a)-(b) of Title
28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
I am alleging that the EEOC of Charlotte, NC violated these
laws primarily due to the nature of my disabilities (mental)
and for complaining, in the past, regarding the negligence of
EEOC employees in handling two previous charges.
I am alleging that I, a qualified individual with a
disability, by reason of such disability, was excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of the services,
programs, activities, of the EEOC of Charlotte, NC a public
entity and a labor organization, and was subjected to
discrimination by the subject entity in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 12132 and Section 1-13-80(B) and (C)(1) of the
South Carolina Human Affairs Law.
(ECF No. 16 at 8 ¶ 39-9 ¶ 42.)
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 D.S.C., the Magistrate Judge reviewed the
allegations against the EEOC and issued the aforementioned
Report and Recommendation on September 21, 2015. (ECF No.
26.) On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No.
court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Title VII claim
via 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it arises under a law of the
United States, and also via 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3),
which empowers district courts to hear claims “brought
under” Title VII. Additionally, the court has
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim via 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, as the claim arises under a law of the United
States, and also via 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117 &
2000e-5(f)(3), which empower district courts to hear claims
by “person[s] alleging discrimination on the basis of
disability.” The court may properly hear
Plaintiff's state law claims based on supplemental
jurisdiction since they are “so related to claims in
the action within such original jurisdiction that . . . it
form[s] part of the same case or controversy . . . .”
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The Magistrate Judge's ...