Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Monae Spencer initiated this civil action by filing a complaint on October 1, 2025, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). On May 26, 2026, defendant Landmark Properties Inc. moved to compel arbitration and to stay the action, and on June 2, 2026, the five individual defendants moved to dismiss. On August 13, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations addressing both motions.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the individual defendants' motion to dismiss because the only claim against them was asserted under Title VII, Spencer did not wish to amend to assert state-law claims against them, and individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII. The magistrate judge also found that the evidence established that Spencer signed an arbitration agreement with Landmark despite his contention that he did not recall doing so, rejected his remaining arguments in opposition to arbitration, and concluded that the agreement covered the dispute at issue. Relying on Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475-76 (2024), the magistrate judge further concluded that a stay of the action pending arbitration was required.
The Court’s Holding
After the findings and recommendations were served with notice that objections were due within twenty-one days, Spencer filed objections on August 19, 2026. Landmark responded on August 31, and the magistrate judge granted Spencer leave to file a limited reply. Landmark then filed a limited supplemental response, prompting Spencer to move to strike that submission. In his objections and limited reply, Spencer principally argued that Landmark violated Section 15 of the Arbitration Agreement by updating and revising employment documents after the sixty-day period referenced in that section had expired. The district court stated that this and related arguments had been thoroughly and properly addressed and rejected in the findings and recommendations.
Acting under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the district court conducted a de novo review of the entire file and concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and by proper analysis. In an order dated October 26, 2026, the court adopted the recommendations in full, granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, directed the Clerk to terminate every defendant except Landmark Properties from the action, and granted Landmark's motion to compel arbitration. The court stayed the case pending arbitration between Spencer and Landmark, vacated all currently calendared dates, and ordered the parties to file a status report six months after the order and every ninety days thereafter, and to notify the court within fourteen days of the arbitrator's decision that arbitration had concluded.
The court separately addressed Spencer's motion to strike Landmark's limited supplemental response. The order notes that the parties' post-objection briefing continued to advance arguments addressing what it called the merits of the motion to remand, and that those arguments were considered 'for what it's worth.' Accordingly, the court denied the motion to strike (Doc. No. 33).
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the August 13, 2026 findings and recommendations in full after conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
- All defendants other than Landmark Properties were dismissed because the only claim against the individual defendants was under Title VII, which does not impose individual liability, and Spencer did not seek to amend to assert state-law claims against them.
- The court enforced the arbitration agreement between Spencer and Landmark, finding the magistrate judge's analysis supported by the record despite Spencer's contention that he did not recall signing the agreement.
- The action was stayed rather than dismissed as to Landmark, with calendared dates vacated and recurring status reports required while arbitration proceeds.
- Spencer's motion to strike Landmark's supplemental response was denied after the court considered the parties' post-objection arguments.
Why It Matters
The order resolves the pending dismissal and arbitration motions by separating the individual defendants from the case and sending the remaining dispute between Spencer and Landmark to arbitration. It applies the magistrate judge's conclusion that Smith v. Spizzirri requires a stay pending arbitration, preserving the federal action while the arbitral process goes forward.
The decision also shows the district court's treatment of a pro se plaintiff's objections and additional briefing: it reviewed the record de novo, considered the supplemental arguments, but found no basis to depart from the recommended disposition. The order does not decide the merits of the underlying employment dispute; it determines which parties remain in the federal case and the forum in which the remaining claims will proceed.