Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JASON STEVEN KOKINDA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-73
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 56], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 20], AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [ECF NO. 39]
I. 	BACKGROUND AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On July 31, 2025, Plaintiff Jason Steven Kokinda (“Plaintiff”
or “Mr. Kokinda”) filed a pro se complaint against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, 	Inc., 	Armando 	Gutierrez, 	Trey 	Sells, 	and 	Connor 	Smith
(collectively 	“Defendants”) 	regarding 	Mr. 	Kokinda’s 	alleged
unlawful 	termination. 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	Pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636 	and
the 	local 	rules, 	the 	Court 	referred 	the 	action 	to 	United 	States
Magistrate 	Judge 	Michael 	J. 	Aloi 	(the 	“Magistrate 	Judge”) 	for
initial review. ECF No. 4.
On September 5, 2025, Mr. Kokinda filed his Amended Complaint
against all Defendants [ECF No. 20], to which Defendants responded
by filing their Joint Answer on September 19, 2025. ECF No. 35. On
October 	14, 	2025, 	Defendants 	filed 	their 	Motion 	for 	Judgment 	on
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
2
the Pleadings. ECF No. 39. On December 3, 2025, Mr. Kokinda filed
a pro se motion for authorization to obtain records. ECF No. 55.
On 	February 	2, 	2026, 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	entered 	a 	Report
and 	Recommendation 	(“R&R”) 	[ECF 	No. 	56], 	recommending 	the 	Court
grant 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	for 	Judgment 	on 	the 	Pleadings 	[ECF 	No.
39], and dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice. ECF
No. 20. The Magistrate Judge additionally recommended Plaintiff’s
motion for authorization to obtain records be denied. ECF No. 55.
The 	R&R 	informed 	the 	parties 	they 	had 	fourteen 	(14) 	days 	to
file “specific written objections identifying the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis
for 	such 	objection.” 	ECF 	No. 	56, 	at 	20. 	It 	further 	warned 	them
“[f]ailure 	to 	timely 	file 	objections . . . will 	result 	in 	waiver
of 	the 	right 	to 	appeal 	from 	a 	judgment 	of 	this 	Court 	based 	upon
such 	[R&R].” 	Id. 	at 	21. 	On 	February 	12, 	2026, 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	filed
his Objections to Magistrate Aloi’s R&R. ECF No. 58.
II. 	OBJECTIONS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de 	novo 	only 	the 	portions 	to 	which 	an 	objection 	has 	been 	timely
made. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1)(C). 	Otherwise, 	“the 	Court 	may 	adopt,
without 	explanation, 	any 	of 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
3
recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete
v. 	Gutierrez, 	479 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	600, 	603–04 	(N.D. 	W. 	Va. 	2007)
(citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts
will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has
been 	made 	unless 	they 	are 	clearly 	erroneous. 	See 	Diamond 	v.
Colonial 	Life & Accident 	Ins. 	Co., 	416 	F.3d 	310, 	315 	(4th 	Cir.
2005).
“When a party does make objections, but these objections are
so 	general 	or 	conclusory 	that 	they 	fail 	to 	direct 	the 	district
court to any specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review
is 	unnecessary.” 	Green 	v. 	Rubenstein, 	644 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	723, 	730
(S.D. 	W. 	Va. 	2009) 	(emphasis 	added) 	(citing 	Orpiano 	v. 	Johnson,
687 	F.2d 	44, 	47 	(4th 	Cir. 	1982)). 	“When 	only 	a 	general 	objection
is made to a portion of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation,
the 	Court 	subjects 	that 	portion 	of 	the 	report-recommendation 	to
only 	a 	clear 	error 	review.” 	Williams 	v. 	New 	York 	State 	Div. 	of
Parole, 	No. 	9:10-CV-1533 	(GTS/DEP), 	2012 	WL 	2873569, 	at 	*2
(N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012).
A 	party 	waives 	any 	objection 	to 	an 	R&R 	that 	lacks 	adequate
specificity. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758,
766 	(2d 	Cir. 	2002) 	(finding 	that 	a 	party’s 	objections 	to 	the
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
4
magistrate 	judge’s 	R&R 	were 	not 	specific 	enough 	to 	preserve 	the
claim 	for 	review). 	Bare 	statements 	“devoid 	of 	any 	reference 	to
specific findings or recommendations . . . and unsupported by legal
authority, 	[are] 	not 	sufficient.” 	Id. 	at 	766. 	Pursuant 	to 	the
Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	and 	this 	Court’s 	Local 	Rules,
“referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments does
not constitute an adequate objection.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b).
Mr. 	Kokinda 	filed 	seven 	(7) 	objections 	to 	the 	Magistrate
Judge’s R&R. ECF No. 58. Objections One, Four, Five, Six, and Seven
argue 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	erred 	in 	finding 	the 	statute 	of
limitations had run on Mr. Kokinda’s Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission 	(“EEOC”) 	claim, 	and 	that 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	had 	constructive
notice of the Notice of Right To Sue (“NRTS”) issued by the EEOC.
Id. 	Objection 	Two 	vaguely 	accuses 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	of
“usurp[ing] 	the 	function 	of 	the 	jury” 	in 	finding 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	had
constructive notice of the NRTS. Id. at 2. Lastly, Objection Three
argues 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	“failed 	to 	analyze 	Mr. 	Kokinda’s
defamation, false light, false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and
other 	injuries 	under 	the 	but-for 	or 	proximate 	cause 	collateral
injury doctrine.” Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
5
A. Objections One, Four, Five, Six, and Seven are overruled.
Mr. 	Kokinda’s 	objections 	regarding 	his 	lack 	of 	constructive
notice 	of 	the 	NRTS 	are 	overruled. 	Pursuant 	to 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2000e-
5(f)(1), 	a 	claimant 	must 	bring 	an 	action 	within 	90 	days 	of 	the
EEOC 	giving 	the 	NRTS. 	ECF 	No. 	56. 	If 	the 	claimant 	fails 	to 	meet
this 90-day window, the court will “conduct a thorough examination
of 	the 	facts 	to 	determine 	if 	reasonable 	grounds 	exist 	for 	an
equitable tolling of the filing period.” Harvey v. New Bern Police
Dep’t, 	813 	F.2d 	652, 	654 	(4th 	Cir. 	1987). 	A 	federal 	court 	may
equitably 	toll 	a 	statute 	of 	limitations 	when 	a 	party 	shows 	“‘(1)
that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely
filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (citing Pace
v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). Equitable tolling is an
“extraordinary” 	remedy 	limited 	to 	those 	occasions 	when 	“it 	would
be 	unconscionable 	to 	enforce 	the 	limitation 	period 	against 	the
party and gross injustice would result.” Harris v. Hutchison, 209
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000).
“Equitable tolling is a discretionary doctrine that ‘turns on
the 	facts 	and 	circumstances 	of 	a 	particular 	case.’” 	Crabill 	v.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., Nos. 10-1539, 10-1553, 2011 WL
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
6
1491230, at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2011) (quoting Harris, 209 F.3d
at 330). “Federal courts have typically extended equitable relief
only sparingly.” Crabill, 2011 WL 1491230, at *6 (citing Irwin v.
Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)). Moreover, the
Fourth 	Circuit 	has 	determined 	requests 	for 	equitable 	tolling 	are
extremely unlikely to be granted where “the claimant’s failure to
receive 	actual 	knowledge 	of 	the 	[NRTS] 	was 	due 	to 	fault 	of 	his
own.” 	Vogel 	v. 	Am. 	Home 	Prods. 	Corp. 	Severance 	Pay 	Plan, 	No. 	96-
2674, 1997 WL 577578, at *2 (4th Cir. Sep. 17, 1997).
Equitable tolling is not appropriate in the instant case. The
EEOC 	issued 	Mr. 	Kokinda’s 	NRTS 	on 	April 	7, 	2025 	[ECF 	No. 	20-3],
thereby 	making 	his 	July 	31, 	2025, 	filing 	of 	his 	Complaint, 	[ECF
No. 	1], 	untimely. 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	argues 	the 	EEOC’s 	portal 	contained
technical problems, which prevented him from being able to access
the NRTS. [ECF No. 58 at 3–4]. Nevertheless, Defendants seemingly
had no issue accessing the NRTS when prompted to do so by the April
7, 	2025, 	communication. 	Then, 	after 	being 	advised 	by 	the 	EEOC 	on
May 	22, 	2025, 	to 	download 	his 	NRTS, 	Plaintiff 	sat 	on 	his 	rights
for 	nearly 	three 	months 	until 	July 	31, 	2025, 	when 	the 	Complaint
was ultimately filed. ECF No. 56.
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
7
As the Magistrate Judge identified, Mr. Kokinda’s failure to
do 	anything 	in 	response 	to 	the 	May 	22, 	2025, 	communication 	from
the 	EEOC 	staff 	“undercuts 	Plaintiff’s 	argument 	for 	equitable
tolling.” 	Id. 	at 	12. 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	had 	every 	chance 	to 	contact 	the
EEOC after its May 22, 2025, communication, and he neglected to do
so. Thus, this Court finds Mr. Kokinda was not diligent in pursuing
his 	rights, 	and 	no 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	justify 	the
application of equitable tolling to Mr. Kokinda’s claim.
Mr. 	Kokinda 	further 	insists 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	opinion
“looks 	nothing 	like 	the 	thorough 	opinion 	granting 	equitable
tolling 	in” 	Jacobs 	v. 	Walmart, 	Inc., 	No. 	RDB-22-2666, 	2023 	WL
4532822 (D. Md. July 13, 2023). In Jacobs, the claimant filed suit
against Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) “92 days after she received the
EEOC’s 	email.” 	Id. 	at 	*6. 	There, 	the 	email 	containing 	the 	EEOC’s
NRTS 	deceivingly 	stated 	“[r]eceipt 	generally 	means 	the 	date 	when
you 	(or 	your 	representative) 	opened 	this 	email 	or 	mail.” 	Id. 	at
*8. 	To 	justify 	equitable 	tolling, 	the 	Jacobs 	claimant 	argued 	the
following:
(1) that she did not have access to her email
until 	May 	16, 	2022; 	(2) 	that 	she 	was
diligently attempting to secure counsel during
the filing period; and (3) that she relied on
the 	EEOC's 	representations 	that 	she 	had 	90
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
8
days 	to 	file 	suit 	from 	“the 	date 	that 	[she]
(or 	[her] 	representative) 	view[ed] 	[the
NRTS].”
Id. at *6. The district court rejected the first two arguments and
accepted 	the 	claimant’s 	final 	argument 	only 	because 	“the 	EEOC's
assurances led her to believe that her submission would be timely.”
Id. 	at 	*9. 	In 	fact, 	the 	court 	noted 	equitable 	tolling 	would 	have
been inappropriate if it were not for “the narrow circumstances of
the case.” Id. at *8.
Despite 	his 	reliance 	on 	Jacobs, 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	has 	failed 	to
provide 	any 	similar 	justification 	for 	permitting 	equitable
tolling. 	First, 	the 	claimant’s 	filing 	in 	Jacobs 	was 	late 	by 	only
two days. By contrast, regardless of whether the April 7, 2025, or
April 15, 2025, date is used to start Mr. Kokinda’s 90-day clock,
his 	filing 	was 	untimely 	by 	a 	matter 	of 	weeks. 	Second, 	the 	EEOC
actively notified Mr. Kokinda his NRTS was available for download
on 	two 	separate 	occasions 	in 	both 	April 	and 	May 	of 	2025, 	and 	he
failed to respond. Therefore, Mr. Kokinda cannot reasonably blame
the 	EEOC 	staff 	for 	his 	own 	faults 	and 	shortcomings. 	As 	a 	result,
objections one, four, five, six, and seven are OVERRULED.
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
9
B. Objection Two is overruled.
Mr. 	Kokinda’s 	Objection 	Two 	falls 	short 	of 	the 	specificity
requirement 	and 	is 	overruled. 	This 	objection, 	which 	broadly
accuses 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	of 	“unlawfully 	weighing 	evidence,
drawing 	unwarranted 	inferences, 	and 	assessing 	credibility 	of 	the
evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants,” [ECF No,
58, 	at 	2], 	fails 	to 	direct 	this 	Court 	to 	any 	specific 	error 	made
by the Magistrate Judge. Green, 644 F. Supp. 2d at 730. Mr. Kokinda
merely 	states 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	“disregard[ed] 	Mr. 	Kokinda’s
vigorous attempts to obtain clarity regarding his case and access
to 	key 	documents[,]” 	[ECF 	No. 	58-1, 	at 	19], 	and 	the 	Magistrate
Judge 	should 	have 	instead 	considered 	the 	EEOC 	agent’s
“incompetence.” Id. at 18.
Mr. 	Kokinda’s 	general 	grievances 	and 	repeated 	conclusory
allegations, even considering his pro se status, do not merit a de
novo 	review 	because 	he 	has 	provided 	no 	specific 	evidence 	of 	the
Magistrate 	Judge’s 	“unlawful 	inferences.” 	Id. 	Further, 	his
objection 	is 	devoid 	of 	any 	reference 	to 	specific 	findings 	or
recommendations 	and 	lacks 	support 	from 	legal 	authority. 	To 	the
extent 	Plaintiff 	provided 	case 	law 	in 	support 	of 	his 	argument,
those cases involved error by EEOC officials. No such error exists
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
10
here, 	as 	Plaintiff 	failed 	to 	act 	on 	his 	rights 	for 	nearly 	three
months. Thus, Objection Two is OVERRULED.
C. Objection Three is overruled.
Mr. Kokinda argues his tort claims are not time-barred because
they 	are 	forms 	of 	collateral 	damage 	flowing 	from 	his 	alleged
wrongful termination. ECF No. 58-1. Without providing any relevant
legal 	support, 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	suggests 	the 	“but-for 	proximate 	cause
collateral injury doctrine” excuses him from independently raising
the defamation and false light claims. Id. at 13. Plaintiff’s cited
case law merely explains direct and proximate causation and fails
to 	specifically 	show 	how 	it 	applies 	to 	his 	situation 	or 	shields
his claims from the statute of limitations.
Further, 	his 	reliance 	on 	the 	Stevenson 	and 	Tobey 	cases 	is
misguided. 	Both 	cases 	involve 	tort 	claims 	brought 	against 	police
officers in their official and individual capacities. See Tobey v.
Jones, 	706 	F.3d 	379, 	384 	(4th 	Cir. 	2013); 	Stevenson 	v. 	Seat
Pleasant, 743 F.3d 411, 413 (4th Cir. 2014). Neither case mentions
collateral 	damages, 	let 	alone 	recovery 	of 	collateral 	damages
where, 	as 	here, 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	admits 	“[t]he 	defendants 	themselves
did not publicize the false arrest.” ECF No. 58-1, at 13.
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 10 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
11
Even 	if 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	had 	successfully 	pled 	his 	tort 	claims,
his 	objection 	still 	fails. 	By 	referring 	back 	to 	the 	Amended
Complaint 	[ECF 	No. 	20], 	Mr. 	Kokinda 	insists 	his 	remaining 	claims
were sufficiently pled. ECF No. 58-1, at 14 n.4. Because this Court
has 	expressly 	prohibited 	objections 	that 	“refer 	the 	court 	to
previously filed papers or arguments,” Strasburg v. Riggleman, No.
2:24-cv-16, 	2025 	WL 	879709, 	at 	*1 	(N.D.W. 	Va. 	Mar. 	21, 	2025)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)), the objection is OVERRULED.
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	[ECF 	No. 	58], 	are
OVERRULED. The 	Court 	reviewed 	the 	remainder 	of 	the 	R&R 	for 	clear
error and found none.
III. CONCLUSION
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	R&R 	in 	its 	entirety
[ECF 	No. 	56] 	and 	OVERRULES 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	[ECF 	No. 	58].
Plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	authorization 	to 	obtain 	records 	[ECF 	No.
55] 	is 	DENIED. 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Judgment 	on 	the 	Pleadings
[ECF No. 39] is GRANTED. Mr. Kokinda’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, 	and 	the 	Court 	DIRECTS 	the 	Clerk 	to 	strike 	this 	case
from the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The 	Clerk 	shall 	transmit 	copies 	of 	this 	Order 	to 	counsel 	of
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 11 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>

Kokinda v. Chipotle Mexican Grille, et al. 	1:25-cv-73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
12
record 	via 	email 	and 	the 	pro 	se 	Plaintiff 	via 	certified 	mail,
return receipt requested.
DATED: September 23, 2026
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:25-cv-00073-TSK-MJA Document 61 Filed 09/23/26 Page 12 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>