Frey v. Dejoy

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

REGINALD FREY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:22-cv-331

vs.

LOUIS DEJOY, District Judge Michael J. Newman United States Postmaster General,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 27); (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA; (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; AND (4) TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Reginald Frey, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, brings this case pro se, raising claims of discrimination based on his race, sex, religion, and disability, and a claim of retaliation, in violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, et seq.1 See Doc. No. 3 at PageID 33-34. Plaintiff also seeks to challenge, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(B)(2), the Merit System Protection Board’s decision concerning his formal complaint of discrimination. Id. The case is pending upon Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 27), to which Plaintiff has not responded. I. Plaintiff’s complaint concerns the same events and discrimination/retaliation claims he included in a previously filed pro se complaint against the Postal Service. Compare Reginald Frey

1 Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy in his official capacity. Doc. No. 3 at PageID 54. Thus, Plaintiff, in effect, asserts his claims against the Postal Service. See Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (“A suit against an individual in his official capacity is the equivalent of a suit against the governmental entity”); see also Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 810 (6th Cir. 2003). v. Louis DeJoy (“Frey I”), No. 3:22-cr-232 (Doc. No. 3) with Reginald Frey v. Louis DeJoy (“Frey II”), No. 3:22-cv-331 (S.D. Ohio) (complaint filed Aug. 15, 2022) (Doc. No. 2). In that prior-filed case—Frey I—this Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on January 31, 2025. Doc. No. 28. In the instant case—Frey II—Defendant’s motion for summary judgment identifies the same problems with Plaintiff’s case and leads to the same conclusions the Court reached in Frey I—i.e., no genuine disputes exist over any material factual issues and Defendant is entitled to

summary judgment in its favor. Consequently, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order in Frey I (Doc. No. 28), the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the instant case, Frey II. In addition, the Court finds that that res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims in the instant case, including the claims he raised in Frey I or any claims he could have raised in Frey I but did not. Cf. Turner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No.3:24-cv-167, 2024 WL 4817488, at *2 (S.D. Ohio 2024) (finding res judicata bars claims when “it is clear and beyond dispute that [the plaintiff’s] claims have been previously litigated between the parties or could have been litigated between them”). II.

For the above reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED on the merits as barred by res judicata. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in Defendant’s favor. The case is TERMINATED on the docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. February 4, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Michael J. Newman United States District Judge