LeFlore-Ray v. Pactiv Evergreen, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SHAWN LEFLORE-RAY, SR., 	Case No. 1:25-cv-1068
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Chief U.S. District Judge
v.
PACTIV EVERGREEN, INC.,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Shawn LeFlore-Ray, Sr., a Kalamazoo, Michigan resident, filed
this complaint alleging that he was unjustly terminated from his employment with
Defendant Pactiv Evergreen USA, which is a business located in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. 	(ECF No. 1.) LeFore-Ray, Sr., says that Defendant’s corporate office is in
Illinois. 	Plaintiff says that he was discriminated against under Title VII and the
Michigan’s 	Elliot 	Larsen 	Civil 	Rights 	Act 	(ELCRA) 	(count 	I), 	and 	he 	asserts
retaliation (count II). 	(Id., PageID.1.) 	In count III, Plaintiff alleges that he was
wrongfully discharged. (Id.) Plaintiff says that this Court has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(3)1 .
1 	That statue provides: 	(3) Each United States district court and each United
States court of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter. Such an action may be brought
in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is
alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment
records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial
district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful
employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such
Case 1:25-cv-01068-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 1
of 6

2
Plaintiff’s complaint is two pages in length. The complaint appears to include
just two lines devoted to factual assertions, which are shown here:
(Id., PageID.2.)
Along with his complaint, Plaintiff provided an attachment that likely provided
additional information regarding Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination. (ECF No.
1-1, PageID.7 (Employee Safety Incident Statement).) 	That statement is shown
below.
an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his
principal office. For purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of title 28, the judicial district
in which the respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be considered a
district in which the action might have been brought.
Case 1:25-cv-01068-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 2
of 6

3
Plaintiff also included a grievance report filed by a union representative
requesting that Plaintiff “be returned back to work and made whole in all ways”
because his termination “for fighting or provoking a fight with another employee” was
“unjust.” (Id., PageID.8.)
On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF
No. 4.)
II. Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
Case 1:25-cv-01068-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 3
of 6

4
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
III. 	Analysis
As a starting point, the Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to
hear this case. 	Plaintiff asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and he cites to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(3). 	Plaintiff asserts a
cause of action under Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq., and under Michigan’s ELCRA. 	In addition, liberally construing Plaintiff’s
complaint, it is possible that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. 	Nevertheless, regardless of whether Plaintiff can invoke this Court’s federal
question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, it is the opinion of the undersigned,
Case 1:25-cv-01068-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 4
of 6

5
that his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Generally, the same framework is required to state a claim under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., or under Michigan’s ELCRA,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, 689
F.3d 642, 652 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Rodriguez, 487 F.3d 1001, 1007 (6th Cir.
2007)). A plaintiff must allege facts showing that “[a]n employer shall not ... [f]ail
or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an
individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or
privilege of employment, because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex,
height, weight, or marital status.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(a). Hill v. Oak
St. Health MSO LLC, No. CV 22-10684, 2023 WL 4206065, at *5 (E.D. Mich. June
27, 2023).
Here, Plaintiff has alleged only that he was terminated from his employment
because he was involved in a physical altercation with another employee. Plaintiff
has asserted no factual allegations that plausibly state a claim of discrimination.
IV. Recommendation
The 	undersigned 	respectfully 	recommends 	that 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	the
complaint because the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Dated: 	October 28, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01068-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 5
of 6

6
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed and served within
fourteen days of service of this notice on you. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). All objections and responses to objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR
72.3(b). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any further right
of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:25-cv-01068-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 6
of 6