United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Rufus Julius Cornelius Anderson, a/k/a Rufus Julius C. Anderson, a/k/a Rufus J. Anderson, Plaintiff,
Greenville Health System, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
Jacquelyn D. Austin United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant [Doc. 27] and motions to strike and for issuance of
subpoenas filed by Plaintiff [Docs. 34, 45, 53]. Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e),
D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all
pretrial matters in cases filed by individuals proceeding pro
se and to submit findings and recommendations to the District
filed this action on April 1, 2016, alleging retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title
VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). [Doc. 1.] On April 27, 2016,
Plaintiff's complaint for employment discrimination and
attachments were filed as attachments to the original
Complaint. [Docs. 1-1-1-4.] On June 15, 2016, Defendant filed
a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 27.] Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition on June 29, 2016 [Doc. 36] and
additional attachments on August 29, 2016 [Doc. 62].
Additionally, on June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to
strike Defendant's motion to dismiss. [Doc. 34.]
Defendant filed a response in opposition on July 15, 2016
[Doc. 38], and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 11, 2016
[Doc. 52]. Plaintiff filed motions for issuance of subpoenas
on August 8, 2016, and August 16, 2016. [Docs. 45, 53.] All
motions are ripe for review.
alleges he called a compliance hotline on June 2, 2009, with
reason to believe he was subjected to a hostile work
environment and also reported harassment of other disabled
employees. [Doc. 1-1 at 6.] His employment was then
terminated on July 1, 2009. [Doc. 1-2.] He was evicted on
August 18, 2009, denied the right to pursue a grievance on
September 22, 2009, and denied rehire on October 14, 2009.
[Id.] Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted while
engaged in protected activity on December 7, 2010, and
charged with larceny failure to return rental object on
December 10, 2010. [Id.] Plaintiff appears to allege
he was charged with a probation violation on July 22, 2011.
[Id.] He filed a lawsuit alleging employment
discrimination on June 26, 2015 [Doc. 1 at 5], and was
arrested on July 23, 2015 [Doc. 1-2]. He alleges all of these
acts amounted to unlawful retaliation in violation of Title
VII and the ADA. [Id.]
attached to his Complaint a letter from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), dated March 3,
2016, outlining Plaintiff's filings with the EEOC as of
that date. [Doc. 1-3.] According to the letter, Plaintiff
filed the following charges with the EEOC:
November 30, 2009 (EEOC Charge No. 436-2010-00192)
Plaintiff was subjected to disparate discipline and
assignment, termination, and denied rehire due to
his race, religion, and sex, and in retaliation for
engaging in protected activity in violation of
Dismissal and notice of rights issued on August 30,
2010; request for reconsideration denied on
November 10, 2010
March 7, 2011 (EEOC Charge No. 436-2011-00472)
Plaintiff was subjected to disparate terms and
conditions of employment when he was assaulted by a
vehicle, his mail was tampered with, and he was
cited for a criminal probation violation due to his
religion and in retaliation for having engaged in
protected activity in 2009 in violation of Title
Dismissal and notice of rights issued on June 13,
August 13, 2013 (EEOC Charge No. 436-2013-00874)
Plaintiff's June 19, 2013 incarceration was in
retaliation for complaining to Defendant on
September 22, 2009 that its activities were
unlawful in violation of Title VII
Dismissal and notice of rights issued on August 20,
November 25, 2013 (EEOC Charge No. 436-2014-00159)
Plaintiff was denied rehire in October 2009 in
retaliation for engaging in protected activity in
violation of Title VII
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on February 14,
2014 because it was filed well beyond the 300 day
period to file a timely charge
May 29, 2014 (EEOC Charge No. 436-2014-00686)
Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation since his
2009 termination in violation of the ADA
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on July 10, 2014
because it was filed after the time period required
for filing a timely charge
[Id. at 1-2.] Plaintiff subsequently filed three
additional inquiries with the EEOC-EEOC Nos. 436-2015-00156N,
436-2015-01175N, and 436-2016-00497N-though they were not
formalized as charges because the EEOC lacked jurisdiction to
file them as charges and investigate them. [Id. at
2.] In the last inquiry, EEOC No. 436-2016-00497N, Plaintiff
alleged he had been subjected to retaliation since his 2009
termination; the EEOC counseled Plaintiff that if he insisted
on filing a charge based on this inquiry, the EEOC would
dismiss it because the allegations were untimely.
[Id.] On March 25, 2016, the EEOC issued a dismissal
and notice of rights to Plaintiff related to EEOC Charge No.
436-2016-00497 (“the 497 Charge”). [Doc. 1-4.]
Construction of Pro Se Complaint
brought this action pro se, which requires the Court to
liberally construe his pleadings. Estelle, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d
1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Pro se pleadings are held to
a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. Even under this less
stringent standard, however, a pro se complaint is still
subject to summary dismissal. Id. at 520-21. The
mandated liberal construction means that only if the court
can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on
which the complainant could prevail, it should do so.
Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.
1999). A court may not construct the complainant's legal
arguments for him. Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411,
417-18 (7th Cir. 1993). Nor should a court “conjure up
questions never squarely presented.” Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
to Dismiss Standards
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) examines whether the
complaint fails to state facts upon which jurisdiction can be
founded. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). It is the plaintiff's
burden to prove jurisdiction, and the court is to
“regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence
on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings
without converting the proceeding to one for summary
judgment.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir.
1991). To resolve a jurisdictional challenge under Rule
12(b)(1), the court may consider undisputed facts and any
jurisdictional facts that it determines. See Id. The
court may dismiss a case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on any of the following bases: “‘(1)
the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by
undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the
court's resolution of disputed facts.'”
Johnson v. United States, 534 F.3d 958, 962 (8th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d
404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be
granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts which would support her claim and
entitle her to relief. When considering a motion to dismiss,
the court should “accept as true all well-pleaded
allegations and should view the complaint in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v.
Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). However, the
court “need not accept the legal conclusions drawn from
the facts” nor “accept as true unwarranted
inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.”
Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd.
P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). Further,
for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may rely on
only the complaint's allegations and those documents
attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference. See
Simons v. ...