United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christopher L. Ray United States Magistrate Judge.
has filed a complaint for employment discrimination in this
court against his former employer and three individuals. Doc.
1. The Court granted his request to pursue his case in forma
pauperis (IFP). Doc. 6. The Court now screens the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the
immediate dismissal of any pro se complaint that fails to
state at least one actionable claim.
initial matter, Plaintiff's claims against the three
individual defendants-Allen Davis, Preston Sizemore, Jr. and
David McQilvray- should be DISMISSED. Relief
in Title VII cases is against the employer, not against
individual employees. Busby v. City of Orlando, 931
F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991). As a result, the proper
defendants in this suit are the employers or supervisory
employees in their official capacities as agents of the
employer. Id. To the extent plaintiff names these
three defendants in their official capacities, the claims are
redundant because the employer has already been named.
Busby, 931 F.2d at 776; Wheeles v. Nelson's
Elec. Motor Servs., 559 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1267 (M.D. Ala.
2008) (“However, when a plaintiff names both the
employer and the individual supervisor in his official
capacity, the supervisor may be dismissed from the
remainder of plaintiff's complaint is also deficient. To
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the allegations in the complaint must
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is,
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed
factual allegations, “it demands more than an
unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
complaint is insufficient if it “offers ‘labels
and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action, '” or if it
“tenders ‘naked assertions' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). In short,
the complaint must provide a “‘plain
statement' possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that
the pleader is entitled to relief.'”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). Here, plaintiff states that he was terminated after
he allowed a patient he was guarding to escape. Doc. 1 at 8.
He then states that “I feel my rights was violation of
the way other officer of younger age, race, color and gender
was treating in similar situation.” Id.
However, plaintiff fails to provide any facts supporting his
allegations that he was treated differently because of his
race, gender, age, or color. In fact, plaintiff fails to tell
us anything about any of those categories at all.
he fails to state a viable claim, “when a more
carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a district
court should give a pro se plaintiff at least one chance to
amend the complaint before the court dismisses the
action.” Jenkins v. Walker, 620 Fed.Appx. 709,
711 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d
1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner
v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542
& n. 1 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc)); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (courts should grant leave to amend
“freely . . . when justice so requires”);
Seckinger v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. CV415-306, 2016
WL 1381814 at *2 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2016). That's the case
here. Lanier's claim might survive preliminary review if
he included facts supporting his allegations that defendant
terminated him because of his age, gender, race, or color. As
a result, plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an
amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this order
correcting the deficiencies noted in this order or face a
recommendation of dismissal.
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542,
545 (11th Cir. 2015).
ORDERED AND REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 Because the Court applies Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) standards in screening a complaint pursuant to
§ 1915A, Leal v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 254
F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001), allegations in the
Complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Bumpus v. Watts, 448
Fed.Appx. 3, 4 n.1 (11th Cir. 2011). Conclusory allegations,