BROWNING
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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 recommended dismissal because the plaintiff filed her Title VII action 91 days after receiving the EEOC right-to-sue letter, exceeding the 90-day statutory limit.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a second amended complaint alleging she received her EEOC right-to-sue letter on April 16, 2025. She initiated…
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 Eeoc Right-To-Sue Letter cases and more on FLexlaw
On August 25 2025, a Report and Recommendation was entered, ECF No. 14, recommending dismissal of this case for several reasons. One reason was that Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se in this case, had not filed an amended in forma pauperis motion as directed, nor has she paid the filing fee. Approximately one week later, Plaintiff paid the filing fee. ECF No. 16. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to recommend dismissal of this case for that reason.
However, there remains another reason that this case should be dismissed. Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint which shows that she exhausted administrative remedies and shows this case was timely filed pursuant to Title VII. ECF No. 12. On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint. ECF No. 13. The complaint alleged that Plaintiff received her notice of right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] on April 16, 2025. Id. at 9. Plaintiff attached a copy of the right to sue letter to the second amended complaint. ECF No. 13-1 at 89. The EEOC letter was dated April 16, 2025. Id.
Before filing suit under Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F. 3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2001). A Title VII action must then be filed in court within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); Perry v. S. Wine Spirits, 511 F. App'x 888, 889 (11th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff initiated this case on July 16, 2025, ECF No. 1, and she alleged within her complaint - sworn under penalty of perjury - that she received the letter from the EEOC on April 16, 2025. ECF No. 13 at 9. July 16th is 91 days from Plaintiff's receipt of the EEOC letter on April 16th. Therefore, this case should be dismissed because it was not timely filed within 90 days.
Case No. 4:25cv305-MW-MAF
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED because Plaintiff did not initiate this case within 90 days of her receipt of the right to sue letter.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 2, 2025.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:25cv305-MW-MAF