Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; May 3, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Saundra F. Turney, a pro se plaintiff, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her amended employment discrimination complaint, which includes claims under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, THRA, FMLA, and various sections of 42 U.S.C. The defendants, including her former employer Catholic Health Initiatives and several individuals, were accused of wrongfully terminating her in September 1999 for sleeping on the job. Turney sought $800,000 in damages and injunctive relief. After filing a charge with the EEOC and receiving a right-to-sue letter, the defendants moved for summary judgment, which Turney did not contest. The district court granted the motion, stating Turney failed to present evidence to support her claims of discrimination and did not establish a prima facie case. The court also noted that the individual defendants could not be held liable under the cited statutes and that Turney's condition did not qualify as a disability under the ADA. On appeal, Turney contends that the district court erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact and that the magistrate judge displayed bias. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, emphasizing that Turney defaulted on her claims by not providing evidence to raise material questions of fact. The standard for summary judgment requires that evidence must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the plaintiff.
Turney claims she did not receive a letter from defense counsel regarding the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but this argument is dismissed. Other circuits require that pro se parties, especially prisoners, be informed of the consequences of not responding to a summary judgment motion and the rules pertaining to it. However, this circuit has not adopted such a requirement. Additionally, while a verified complaint can serve as evidence to establish genuine issues of material fact, Turney's amended complaint was not verified and lacked a declaration under penalty of perjury, making it insufficient to counter the defendants' motion. Certificates of service confirm that the motion and supporting documents were sent to Turney, and she does not dispute their receipt. The court finds that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendants. Turney's claim of bias against the magistrate judge is also rejected, as there is no supporting evidence in the record; dissatisfaction with rulings does not constitute bias. Consequently, the district court's order is affirmed.
