The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DASHON HINES, :
Plaintiff, : 4:22-CV-1218
: (JUDGE MARIANI)
V. : (Magistrate Judge Saporito)
SHANER HOTELS, :
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS " DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022, upon de novo review of
Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 9), ITIS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 10) are OVERRULED. '
‘ lf a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while
Plaintiffs Objections were timely filed, he has only made generalized objections to the entire R&R and has
failed to identify any specific portions of the R&R or proposed findings to which he objects. Nonetheless,
even applying a de novo standard of review, Plaintiffs vague Objections are without merit. Plaintiff's
Objections state that he objects to the R&R “in its entirety’ and argue, in cursory fashion, that he has “made
sufficient allegations before this Court’ and that “the futility exception waived the need to exhaust remedies
before any administrative body.” (See Doc. 10). With respect to his first objection, upon review of Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Saporito that “the sparse facts of the pro se complaint fail to
plausibly allege the substantive elements of either a discrimination or a retaliation claims under Title VII”
(Doc. 9, at 6). The brief factual allegations set forth in the Complaint in support of Plaintiff's claim, to wit,
that he was suspended “for calling 911 on a co-worker” and was then fired one week later because he
called 911 on his co-worker (see Doc. 1, at 1-2), are insufficient to support his Title VII claim(s) and
Plaintiffs Objections fail to provide any legal or factual support to alter this Court’s conclusion. Plaintiff's
second Objection, that he does not need to exhaust his administrative remedies because of a “futility
exception” is equally without merit. “In order to invoke the futility exception to exhaustion, a party must
‘provide a clear and positive showing’ of futility before the District Court.” Wilson v. MVM, Inc., 475 F.3d
2. The R&R (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
3. Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), without leave to amend.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
VAN aa
Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge
166, 175 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing D'Amico v. CBS Corp., 297 F.3d, 287, 293 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff
Hines does not dispute that he did not exhaust, or even attempt to exhaust, his administrative remedies or
provide this Court with any basis to demonstrate that exhaustion would have been futile.