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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging Title VII retaliation after previous complaints were dismissed. The Magistrate Judge found the com…
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 Protected Activity cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's report recommending that the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 28) be dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 34). 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).
On January 8, 2025, the Court adopted the first Magistrate Judge's report recommending the dismissal of the first, amended complaint and permitted Plaintiff one final opportunity to plead a viable claim of Title VII retaliation. Dkts. 17, 23, 24, 26. Plaintiff complied and repleaded his complaint. Dkt. 28.
Upon reviewing all the Court's prior recommendations and orders, the Magistrate Judge found that this Second Amended Complaint, again, failed to allege a claim for retaliation. Dkt. 34. Specifically, the conduct Plaintiff complained about is "entirely unrelated to Plaintiffs or any other employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Dkt. 34 at 8–9. Absent allegations of participation in protected activity—opposing conduct or employment practices violative of Title VII—the operative complaint is insufficient to state a claim for retaliation.
Plaintiff had several attempts to plead a claim. After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned analysis and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 34) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 28) is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is not permitted to refile an amended complaint.
3. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending deadlines and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on March 31, 2025.