Floyd v. Northeast Florida Health Services, Inc.

Filing 53

ORDER granting 36 Motion for summary judgment; Adopting Report and Recommendations re 45 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 8/19/2014. (DJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

EUNICE DARLENE FLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:13-cv-655-Orl-41DAB

NORTHEAST FLORIDA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed
on December 9, 2013. (Doc. 36). On July 1, 2014, the United States Magistrate filed a Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. 45). Procedurally, the United States Magistrate Judge recommends
that Defendant’s motion be granted on Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely claim. (Id. at 15-18).
Substantively, the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s Motion be
granted as to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims of disparate treatment, hostile environment, and
retaliation based on race discrimination as articulated in the Report and Recommendation. (Id. at
18-36).
On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. 51). Plaintiff objects generally, to the Magistrate Judge’s failure to give Plaintiff’s
pleadings sufficient leniency based on her status as a pro se litigant, the incorporation of
Defendant’s “undisputed facts,” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. 36 at 3-12), into the Report and
Recommendation, and the Magistrate Judge’s failure to consider all evidence that Plaintiff

Page 1 of 3

submitted to include the submitted conclusions of law. (Pl.’s Objection, Doc. 51 at 1-12). On
August 14, 2014, Defendant filed a response. (Doc. 52).
After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees
entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation.
First, to specifically address Plaintiff’s objections, the Court exercised some leniency in
declining to strike improper pleadings and evidence and in continually extending deadlines.
(Order on Def.’s Mot. to Strike, Doc. 43; Order on Pl.’s Mots. to Extend Time to File Objections,
Doc. 50). Although a pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal interpretation of filed pleadings, pro se
status does not entitle Plaintiff to a trial if there is a manifest failure to meet a burden under the
summary judgment standard. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997)
(“[A]lthough the plaintiff’s complaint is entitled to a less strict interpretation, the plaintiff must
still meet the essential burden of establishing that there is a genuine issue as to a fact material to
[her] case.”); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990) (“[A] pro se litigant does
not escape the essential burden under summary judgment standards.”). While the Court
considered Plaintiff’s pleadings and liberally construed the allegations contained therein,
Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet the burden necessary to overcome summary judgment.
Second, the Magistrate Judge properly considered Plaintiff’s evidence, including
Plaintiff’s untimely response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the evidence
attached thereto. (Order on Def.’s Mot. to Strike, Doc. 43). This Court considered and construed
the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s objection does not offer proper
evidence to contradict Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony or the declarations and testimony of
other witnesses. To the extent that any facts could be disputed, those facts are immaterial to the

Page 2 of 3

determination of Plaintiff’s cause of action because those facts do not have a bearing on any
element necessary to proving Plaintiff’s claims.
Again, this Court conducted an independent de novo of the record and considered the
applicable legal authority. Plaintiff’s claims are both procedurally barred and substantively
deficient.
The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and
incorporated into this Order. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED. The Clerk is hereby directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 19, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

Page 3 of 3