United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hartley Shawcross Robertson brings this pro se
action against his former employer. Defendant Beacon Sales
Acquisition. Inc. d/b/a The Roof Center
("Defendant" or "the Company"). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant demoted him in October of 2011 based
on his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and
terminated him in September of 2012 in retaliation for
engaging in activity protected under the Dodd-Frank Act. 15
U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A). Now pending before the Court is
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12. and Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Addendum. ECF No. 21. No.
hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the
following reasons. Defendant's Motions are granted.
Factual Background 
worked as an Assistant Controller in Plaintiffs Gaithersburg.
Maryland headquarters, starting sometime before November of
2010. Plaintiff alleges that starting in
November of 2010. he observed Matthew Frye, the Branch
Manager of Defendant's White Plains location, engage in
inappropriate financial activities and that he reported these
activities to William Onofre. Plaintiff's first-line
supervisor and the Controller; Mike Alley, the Regional
Manager; and Frances Stevenson, a Staff Accountant.
Specifically. Plaintiff alleges that Frye repeatedly received
checks from contractors but failed to immediately deposit
them or otherwise notify the Regional Manager as required by
Company policy, Id. at 7. Because Frye was improperly
advancing inventory to contractors without payment. Plaintiff
warned Defendant that Frye was possibly defrauding the
Company, Id. at 10.
October 1. 2011, Plaintiff was assigned to conduct an audit
of the inventory for the White Plains branch. Id. at
9. Plaintiff indicates that he was unable to perform
the audit that day because the branch was not ready,
Id. at 10. When Plaintiff returned to conduct the
audit the following day. Onofre instructed Plaintiff that he
only had two and a half hours to complete the audit.
Id. Although Plaintiff stated that two and a half
hours was insufficient. Plaintiff proceeded as expeditiously
as possible and ultimately reported to Onofre that he found a
large number of discrepancies and had concerns with the
branch's inventor} and accounting practices. Id.
October 11. 2011. Onofre issued Plaintiff a written reprimand
for failing to follow the audit process because he allegedly
utilized branch employees to assist with taking the
inventory. Id. at 11. Onofre did not investigate the
inventory discrepancies that Plaintiff previously raised.
Id. On October 17. 2011. Plaintiff was summoned to
the Human Resources office, and Onofre. along with two other
employees, blamed Plaintiff for some of the missing inventory
that Plaintiff previously identified. Id. Plaintiff
states that he was given the choice to either accept a
demotion to Staff Accountant or face termination.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that his demotion was part of
an effort by Defendant to cover up Frye's infractions and
systematically reduce Plaintiffs role in the company,
id. Although the correspondence attached to
Plaintiffs Complaint makes no mention of racial
discrimination. Plaintiff alleges in his Statement of Claim
that he. an African American, was demoted whereas Alley, who
is Caucasian, failed to act in response to Frye's
misconduct but was allowed to remain in management.
Id. at 1.
contends that following his demotion, he continued to report
instances of possible misconduct but. on August 12. 2012. he
was issued a Final Warning for questioning management
practices. Id. at 11. On September 19. 2012.
Plaintiffs former attorney informed Defendant of its alleged
retaliation against Plaintiff and requested that it stop.
Id. at 1 2: see also Id. at 2-3 (September
19. 2012 Correspondence). On September 20. 2012. Plaintiff
reported that Onofre appeared to be inappropriately using
Company funds, yet Defendant failed to investigate.
Id. at 12. On September 24, 2012. Defendant relieved
Plaintiff of all major duties, Id. The following
day. Defendant terminated Plaintiff. Id.
Service of Process
fled his Complaint on September 23. 2016 but did not serve
Defendant with a copy of the summons until October 23. 201 7.
almost 400 days later. ECF Nos. 1.11. After Plaintiff
initially tiled the Complaint, the Court issued an Order on
September 30. 2016 directing Plaintiff to complete and file a
summons. ECF No. 2. In the Order, the Court informed
Plaintiff of his obligation to serve Defendant with a summons
and copy of the Complaint in accordance with Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided Plaintiff with
the website and phone number for the Maryland State
Department of Assessments and Taxation so that Plaintiff
could obtain the name and service address for Defendant's
resident agent, hi. Following this Order. Plaintiff
failed to submit a completed summons for the Clerk to issue
and failed to serve Defendant with the summons and copy of
February 2, 2017. the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause
as to why service of process had not been effected within
fourteen days and warned that failure to show cause would
result in dismissal of the Complaint. F.CF No. 3. On February
15. 2017. Plaintiff submitted a proposed summons for
Defendant's General Counsel at 5244 River Road. Bethesda.
MD 20816. ECF No. 4. The summons was issued by the
Clerk's office on March 30, 2017. ECF No. 5. but
Plaintiff did not explain his failure to timely submit a
issuance of the summons. Plaintiff did not file a
notification via affidavit that Defendant had been served,
and. on June 8. 2017. the Court again ordered Plaintiff to
show cause as to why service of process had not been
effected. ECF No. 6. On June 21, 2017. Plaintiff requested an
extension to the Show Cause Order, indicating that he was
unaware that the Clerk's office had issued the summons.
ECF No. 7. Plaintiff indicated that after receiving the Show
Cause Order, he went to the courthouse to complete service of
process and was referred to Janet Fletcher but was unable to
contact her. Id. Plaintiff then mailed the summons
to Defendant at the River Road address and filed a copy of
the certified mail receipt on August 7. 2017. ECF No. 8.
Again. Plaintiff failed to explain his delay in mailing the
summons to Defendant.
October 4. 2017. the Court informed Plaintiff that there was
no indication that the summons was mailed to Defendant as it
did not appear that the mail was sent restricted delivery
with a return receipt requested. ECF No. 9. The Court once
again ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why sen ice of
process had not been effected. Id., Plaintiff
responded on October 18. 201 7. indicating that while he sent
a copy of the summons by certified mail with return receipt
requested on June 22. 2017. the certified mail was unable to
be delivered because the addressee was unknown, and it was
returned to Plaintiff oil August 4. 2017. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff
indicated that he had since discovered the correct address
for Defendant's General Counsel and re-sent the summons
via certified mail that day. hi. On October 25.
2017, Plaintiff filed a copy of the associated return
receipt, indicating that the summons had been delivered to
Defendant's General Counsel at its correct address. ECF
moves to dismiss the Complaint for insufficient service of
process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(4). (5). and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. ...