Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Derek N. Jarvis v. Analytical Laboratory Services

June 4, 2012

DEREK N. JARVIS, PLAINTIFF
v.
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Chief Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) and Magistrate Judge Blewitt's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5). For the reasons stated more fully herein, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in part and will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND*fn1

The background of this action is adequately set forth in Judge Blewitt's Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Court will only briefly review the relevant factual details. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company from June 27, 2000, until he was terminated on April 19, 2007. Plaintiff filed two complaints alleging workplace discrimination, including discrimination arising from his termination, with the EEOC and local government agencies. As a result of these filings, the EEOC issued right to sue letters on September 26, 2007, and June 24, 2008. On December 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland. Jarvis v. Enterprise Leasing Company, No. 8:07-cv-3385 (D. Md.). He filed his final amended complaint, which included claims of retaliatory discharge, on February 13, 2009. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

After being terminated by Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company, Plaintiff applied for work with Defendant Analytical Laboratory Services on June 8, 2008. After completing an Equal Employment Opportunities Monitoring Form, he received no further correspondence from Defendant Analytical Laboratory Services. On June 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a claim of discrimination with the EEOC. He received a right to sue letter on April 20, 2010, and filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 8, 2010. Jarvis v. Analytical Laboratory Services, 8:10-cv-1540 (D. Md.). The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Analytical Laboratory Services, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

In late 2011 or early 2012, Plaintiff filed a claim with the EEOC alleging that Defendants "blacklisted" him and claiming that Defendant Analytical Laboratory Services denied him employment on June 8, 2008, because Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company in federal court. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on January 6, 2012, in which the EEOC explained that the charge was not timely filed. On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff initiated the present action based on his EEOC charge.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court is satisfied that Magistrate Judge Blewitt correctly determined that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), however, before service of process will be ordered, the Court must screen the complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal. Section 1915(e)(2) provides:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

(B) the action or appeal-

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.