MATTHEWS
v.
QUICK FREELANCERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, denying the Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice as to the hostile work environment claim and without prejudice as to the retaliation claim, granting one final opportunity to amend the retaliation claim.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and motions to proceed in forma pauperis. A Magistrate Judge recommended denying the IFP motions and dismissing t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adverse Action cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkts. 18, 19) and the amended complaint (Dkt. 17). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motions be denied without prejudice and that the amended complaint be dismissed with one last opportunity to file a second amended complaint on the claim of retaliation. Dkts. 23, 24. The time for filing objections has passed.
The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge found that the amended complaint (Dkt. 17) does not rectify the deficient hostile work environment claim as the necessary severity and protected class membership has not been alleged. Dkts. 23 at 3–5; 24 at 3-5. As to retaliation, however, Plaintiff will be permitted one more chance to allege
sufficient facts to show a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity. Dkts. 23 at 5-6; 24 at 5-6. The amended complaint also fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 10(b) as explained. Dkts. 23 at 6; 24 at 6. After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendations and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendations (Dkts. 23, 24) are adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkts. 18, 19) are denied without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. 17) is dismissed with prejudice as to the claim for hostile work environment and without prejudice as to the claim for retaliation. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must file a second amended complaint only as to the retaliation claim and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the Report and Recommendations within thirty (30) days. If a second amended complaint is not timely filed, this case will be dismissed and closed without further notice.
4. Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address in July 2024. Dkt. 22. The last orders sent to this address in December 2024 were returned as undeliverable. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to file a change of address to reflect his correct
2
address and also to check the docket for activity. If Plaintiff does not file a corrected notice of change of address within the time to file a second amended complaint, this case will be dismissed and closed without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on January 8, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff John Kirk Matthews, pro se 11500 Summit West Blvd., Apt. 18C Tampa, Florida 33617
3