White v. Presbyterian Hospital et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MJOKI WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-02608-KWR-LF
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL,
BRENDA BELTRAN,
RUSS LU QUIRE,
ANGELINA ROJAS and
DEB AU,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint using the form “Complaint for
Employment Discrimination.” 	Plaintiff asserts race, color, and age discrimination claims and
retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and
the 	Age 	Discrimination 	in 	Employment 	Act 	(“ADEA”), 	29 U.S.C. §§ 621-624, 	against
Presbyterian Hospital and four of its employees. See Complaint for Employment Discrimination
at 1-4, Doc. 1, filed August 7, 2026 (“Complaint”). 	Plaintiff attached a two-page statement, an
EEOC Charge of Discrimination, and an email Plaintiff sent to the EEOC to his form Complaint.
See Complaint at 8-17.
United States Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing notified Plaintiff the Complaint fails to state
claims for race, color and age discrimination. See Order for Amended Complaint, Doc. 9, filed
September 9, 2026. After identifying the elements of race and color discrimination claims pursuant
to Title VII and for age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
Judge Fashing described the Iqbal/Twombly standard for determining whether a plaintiff has stated
Case 1:26-cv-02608-KWR-LF Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
a plausible claim and explained why the allegations in the Complaint failed to state plausible
claims. See Order for Amended Complaint at 3-6 (quoting the Iqbal/Twombly standard in Brooks
v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021)). Judge Fashing ordered Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint and notified Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint
may result in dismissal of this case. See Order for Amended Complaint at 8. Plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint or otherwise respond to Judge Fashing’s Order by the September 30, 2026,
deadline.
The Court dismisses this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has not complied with
Judge Fashing’s Order to file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss
the action”); Gustafson v. Luke, 696 Fed.Appx. 352, 354 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Although the language
of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been
interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or
comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.”) (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d
1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
___/S/ KEA W. RIGGS______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-02608-KWR-LF Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2