The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Wednesday, 25 April, 2012 08:42:31 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mike Stratton's Combined Motion to Dismiss and Affirmative Defenses (Motion to Dismiss) (d/e 10). Because Plaintiff's Complaint is untimely, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED
Plaintiff Robert Ananias's Complaint was prepared using this District's form for a "Pro Se Complaint Against Employment Discrimination, Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5." Very liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges he was discharged from his employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (ADA). Because this Court concludes Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because it is untimely, the Court will discuss only the facts necessary to support its conclusion.
Plaintiff attached to his complaint the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Dismissal and Notice of Rights (right-to-sue letter), which indicated the right-to-sue letter was mailed on April 18, 2011. The right-to-sue letter also contained the United States Postal Service tracking number for the letter. The tracking number was 7010 3090 0001 5505 5474. The United States Postal Service's website indicates that the letter was delivered on April 26, 2011. On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff his pro se Complaint.*fn1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The federal questions posed by Plaintiff's claim give this Court subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1331. Personal jurisdiction and venue requirements are satisfied because the relevant acts occurred in this judicial district. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980) (personal jurisdiction exists where a defendant "purposefully avail[ed] [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities" in the forum state); see 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) (venue in non-diversity cases is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper where a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must provide a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). That statement must be sufficient to provide the defendant with "fair notice" of the claim and its basis. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 940 (2007). This means that: (1) "the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant 'fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests'" and (2) its allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a "speculative level." EEOC v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). While detailed factual allegations are not needed, a "formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d at 940. Conclusory allegations are "not entitled to be assumed true." ...