Gilliam v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
ORDER denying plaintiff's 82 Motion for the Record and Court Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/6/2019. (CMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD LEE GILLIAM,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for
the Record and Court Reconsideration (Doc. #82) filed on April 25,
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
On March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint with prejudice because plaintiff failed to state
a legally sufficient cause of action.
On April 1,
2019, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the
(Doc. # 78.)
The Court denied plaintiff’s motion
because plaintiff failed to identify a “need to correct clear error
Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 25, 2019 and again
argues the Court erred in dismissing the Third Amended Complaint
Plaintiff cites to the Middle District of Florida
case Atkinson v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs, 8:10-cv-01482-MSSTBM, which he describes as a retaliation law suit that was settled
by the Department of Veteran Affairs (the VA) and resulted in a
one million dollar judgment awarded to “police officers, doctors,
nurses and other administrative personnel between the years of
2010 and 2014” – the time period during which plaintiff alleges
the retaliation against him occurred at the VA.
Complaint’s retaliation claims.
(Doc. #82, p. 1.)
hostile months while alerting the supervisory staff to target him
for removal . . . .”
(Id., pp. 1-2.)
allegations regarding Chief Robert Shogren have no bearing on
whether the Third Amended Complaint alleged a legally sufficient
cause of action.1
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, and for the
Plaintiff also appears to argue that the Court overlooks
the fact that the police officer plaintiffs in Atkinson are valid
comparators in support of the Third Amended Complaint’s various
discrimination claims. To plead a discrimination claim, however,
a plaintiff must identify a comparator who was treated “more
favorably than he was treated.”
Trask v. Sec’y, Dep’t of
Veterans Affairs, 822 F.3d 1179, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016)(emphasis
added)(citation omitted). Plaintiff’s citation to Atkinson does
- 2 -
reasons previously stated by the Court, Plaintiff has failed to
identify a “need to correct clear error or prevent
Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694.
Plaintiff’s motion is
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff's Motion for the Record and Court Reconsideration
(Doc. #82) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
Parties and Counsel of Record
not alter the Court’s previous finding that Plaintiff failed to
identify such a comparator.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?