Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Cummings v. Concrete Protection & Restoration, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 30, 2015

ALPHONSO CUMMINGS, Plaintiff,
v.
CONCRETE PROTECTION & RESTORATION, INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.

The Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against the Defendant alleging that he was denied employment because of racial discrimination (ECF No. 1). The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint noting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, that a "right to sue" letter was ever issued by the EEOC, or that such letter was attached to the Complaint as required (ECF No.

7). The Plaintiff does not contest Defendant's argument that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking due to the absence of a "right to sue" letter ( see ECF No. 9).

The Court has carefully examined Plaintiff's submissions. In his pro se Complaint form, at Paragraph No. 10, he lists "Nov. 17, 2014" after the form's statement "I received a right to sue letter (attached copy) on the following date:." Otherwise, in the Plaintiff's Complaint there is no reference to a "right to sue" letter, and none has been attached.

The Defendant has failed to demonstrate, directly or indirectly, that he received a "right to sue" letter. Accordingly, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction and the case will be DISMISSED by separate Order.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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