Muhammad v. Selma City School Board

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING, as modified, 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Selma City School Board. The Motion to Dismiss is granted and Counts 18 and 105 of Plaintiff's amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 7/10/2012. (copy mailed to both addresses for plaintiff) (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

JIBRAIL MALIK MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SELMA CITY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 12-115-KD-M

ORDER
This action is before the Court on Defendant Selma City School Board (“School Board”)’s
unopposed motion to dismiss (Doc. 14), Defendant’s brief in support (Doc. 15), and the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 17).
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues
raised, and no objections having been filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as modified as follows, as the opinion of this
Court:
1)

In the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph on page 5, “January 9, 2009” is

STRICKEN and REPLACED with “January 9, 2012.”
2)

In the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 6, “articulate” is

STRICKEN and REPLACED with “accommodate.”
3)

That portion of the Recommendation on page 8 beginning with “After reviewing

the evidence of record” and ending with “that this claim be dismissed,” wherein the Magistrate
Judge finds that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination, is
STRICKEN and REPLACED with the following:

1

Although a Title VII complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make out a
classic prima facie case, see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511
(2002), it must provide enough factual matter, taken as true, to suggest intentional
discrimination. Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th
Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007)). See
also Henderson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 436 F. App’x 935, 937 (11th Cir.
2011) (“A complaint in an employment discrimination case need not contain
specific facts establishing a prima facie case under the evidentiary framework for
such cases to survive a motion to dismiss. But complaints alleging discrimination
still must meet the ‘plausibility standard’ of Twombly and Iqbal.” (internal citation
omitted)). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff failed to plead any factual matter to
support such a suggestion. Significantly, the amended complaint is bereft of any
allegation that Plaintiff was disciplined by the School Board or any of its agents for
attending a religious service that conflicted with Plaintiff’s teaching schedule.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted as to this claim.
4)

That portion of the Recommendation spanning pages 10 and 11 and beginning with

“After reviewing all of the evidence related to this claim” and ending with “granted as to this
claim,” wherein the Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was eligible
for FMLA leave at the time of his request, is STRICKEN and REPLACED with the following:
Plaintiff’s allegations in support of his FMLA claim fall well short of the
pleading standard demanded by Iqbal. Far from showing that he had worked the
requisite number of hours in a 12-month period to be eligible for FMLA leave,
Plaintiff represents in his amended complaint that his supervisor’s records show
that he has been absent from work since April 7, 2009, more than 16 months before
Plaintiff allegedly requested leave. (Doc. 6, p. 88). What’s more, Plaintiff
admits in his amended complaint that he has not satisfied the statutory hours
requirement. (Id.). Whereas Plaintiff has pled facts that belie his eligibility for
FMLA leave, his interference claim is fatally flawed. Therefore, Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss is granted as to this claim as well.
It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED and that
Counts 18 and 105 of Plaintiff’s amended complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.1

1

As the Eleventh Circuit has held, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed can justify dismissal with prejudice. See Carvel v. Godley, 404 F. App’x 359, 361 (11th
Cir. 2010) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
2

As provided in Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judgment shall be entered
by separate document.
DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of July 2012.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3