United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
ROGER J. BELL, Plaintiff,
JACK LNU and CHRIS LNU, Defendants.
J.RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
careful, de novo review of the file, the Court
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc.
no. 14.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis in this employment discrimination case, the
Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiffs original complaint and
ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint within fourteen days
to correct certain pleading deficiencies on a standard
employment discrimination form provided to him. (See
doc. no. 4.) When Plaintiff failed to respond, the Magistrate
Judge recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice on
May 11, 2018. (Doc. no. 5.) Faced with the possibility of
dismissal, Plaintiff responded with a document entitled
"Objects," describing certain interactions with
Defendants Jack LNU and Chris LNU that occurred before his
termination, but he did not submit the complaint form
provided to him. (See doc. no. 7.)
Magistrate Judge afforded Plaintiff another opportunity to
submit an amended complaint as originally instructed,
stating: "If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this
action, he must complete and submit the enclosed complaint
form by June 1st. Plaintiff should carefully review the
instructions and provide the particular information
requested." (Doc. no. 8, p. 2.) On May 29, 2018,
Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint, which as the
Magistrate Judge explained in the Report and Recommendation
now before the Court, again named only individual employees
as Defendants, did not list his age despite checking the box
for an age discrimination case, and did not provide any facts
in support of his check-the-box claims for age
discrimination, race discrimination, or retaliation.
(See doc. nos. 9, 11.) Nor did Plaintiff attach the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge or
right to sue letter. As Plaintiff had been given multiple
opportunities, to no avail, to remedy pleading deficiencies,
the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the case. (Doc.
response, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and
again submitted the document entitled "Objects,"
without the EEOC charge or right to sue letter, which
Plaintiff had previously submitted in response to the first
recommendation for dismissal. (Doc. nos. 7, 13, 14.) The
second amended complaint again names only individual
employees as Defendants and provides no facts in support of
his check-the-box employment discrimination claims. (See doc.
no. 13.) Nor did Plaintiff include a request for relief.
(Id. at 7.) Plaintiff attached his right to sue
letter, but did not attach or describe the contents of his
EEOC charge such that the Court would be able to discern the
nature of the charges raised to the EEOC.
been previously explained to Plaintiff, (doc. no. 4, p. 2),
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), Plaintiff must proffer a short and
plain statement (1) detailing the Court's jurisdiction,
(2) showing that he is entitled to relief, and (3) demanding
judgment for the relief that he seeks. Neither the first
amended complaint screened by the Magistrate Judge, nor the
second amended complaint submitted in response to the most
recent recommendation for dismissal, complies with this Rule.
There are no facts offered in support of any check-the-box
employment discrimination claims, and Plaintiff makes no
demand for judgment for any relief.
it is well-settled that "a Title VII claim may be
brought against only the employer and not against an
individual employee." Dearth v. Collins, 441
F.3d 931, 933 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
("[R]elief under Title VII is available against only the
employer and not against individual employees whose actions
would constitute a violation of the Act, regardless
of whether the employer is a public company or a private
company." (citations omitted)); but see Hinson v.
Clinch Ctv.. Ga. Bd. of Educ, 231 F.3d 821, 827 (11th
Cir. 2000) ("The only proper individual defendants in a
Title VII action would be supervisory employees in their
capacity as agents of the employer." (citations
omitted)). Plaintiff names only individual employees as
Defendants and provides no factual details alleging these two
individuals were acting as agents of the unnamed employer.
'[w]here a more carefully drafted complaint might state a
claim, a plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend
the complaint before the district court dismisses the action.
. . ." Bryant v. Dupree. 252 F.3d 1161, 1163
(11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has now submitted two amended complaints, and each
time has failed to cure multiple pleading deficiencies,
including naming individuals as Defendants instead of the
employer, failing to provide any factual detail in support of
his check-the-box claims, and failing to make a demand for
the Court OVERRULES the objections,
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES
this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this
 As the Magistrate Judge explained, the
EEOC charge is in the record. (Doc. no. 1, p. 9; doc. no. 7,
pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on race and
retaliation, not age. Moreover, although Plaintiff lists his
age as thirty years old, he provides no information about the
age of his co-workers in ...