Coleman v. Walmart et al
ORDER adopting and confirming 45 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, overruling 46 partial Objection filed by Darlene Coleman, denying 42 MOTION to Amend by Plaintiff, granting in part and denying in part 33 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint an d Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Walmart and Terry Wilson. Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case Signed by Chief Judge Anne C. Conway on 3/18/2015. (SR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 6:14-cv-672-Orl-22GJK
WALMART, TERRY WILSON,
LENARD MORGAN and HELEN
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Darlene Coleman’s (“Coleman”) partial
Objection (Doc. No. 46) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
No. 45), which recommended (1) that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33) filed by Defendants
Walmart and Terry Wilson (“Defendants”) be granted in part and denied in part, and (2) that
Coleman’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 42) be denied. More specifically, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the federal claims in Coleman’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) be
dismissed, and that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over Coleman’s remaining statelaw claims. The Court will adopt and confirm the R&R in its entirety.
Coleman does not object to Judge Kelly’s recommendation that her federal claims be
dismissed, but she requests that the Court continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her
state law claims. As the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction,
retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida state law claims would be an ill-advised
expenditure of limited federal judicial resources. For this reason, the Eleventh Circuit has
consistently “encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the
federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 108889 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing L.A. Draper & Son v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d
414, 428 (11th Cir. 1984)). The Court will overrule Coleman’s objection and decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims.
Coleman may refile her state law claims in state court, but she must perfect service on any
defendants she names in such a lawsuit. Coleman is encouraged to consult Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.070 and Chapter 48 of the Florida Statutes before filing suit.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
Plaintiff Darlene Coleman’s partial Objection (Doc. No. 46), filed March 17, 2015,
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 45), issued March
3, 2015, is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Walmart and Terry Wilson (Doc. No. 33),
filed October 31, 2014, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s federal claims
are DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3), and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 42), filed January 21, 2015, is DENIED for
the reasons stated in the R&R.
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Orlando, Florida on March 18, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
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?