THOMAS
v.
ADAMS
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.
Plaintiff Thomas filed a pro se federal complaint against defendants Adams and Campbell. The district court dismissed both federal claims for failure to state a claim and state-law claims in its discretion for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
The court dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, in its discretion, dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice rather than retaining supplemental jurisdiction over them.
[1] A federal court may dismiss state-law claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.
[2] A pro se plaintiff's amended complaint may be dismissed if it remains "scattered and replete with fanciful allegations" and fails to state a claim for relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Plaintiff's original complaint was scattered and replete with fanciful allegations.”
Describes the deficient pleading standard that led to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed an original complaint containing scattered and fanciful allegations of both federal and state law claims. After a magistrate judge rec…
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 Federal Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
On screening Plaintiff's pro se complaint, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has filed objections (ECF No. 8), and I have considered the matter de novo. I now dismiss the case.
Plaintiff's original complaint was scattered and replete with fanciful allegations. It purported to allege federal and state claims. The magistrate judge issued an order detailing some of the defects and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to replead. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff's amended complaint is no better. As to the federal claims, Plaintiff has not stated any claim for relief. As a matter of discretion, I choose to dismiss the state-law claims, over which this court would have only supplemental jurisdiction. See Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F. 3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) ("We have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial."). I now adopt the
1
report and recommendation to the extent it concludes the federal claims fail to state a claim. I overrule Plaintiff's objections.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, "Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's state claims are dismissed without prejudice." The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on July 7, 2025.
s/ Allen Winsor Chief United States District Judge
2