Floyd v. Northeast Florida Health Services, Inc. et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Adopting Report and Recommendations - re 5 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 5/20/2015. (DJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

EUNICE DARLENE FLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:14-cv-1903-Orl-41DAB

NORTHEAST FLORIDA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., KATHY WILKES,
CHERI BOYD, KELLY GRAHAM and
MARIA ORTIZ,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 2). United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R,” Doc. 5), recommending that the Motion be denied and the claims be dismissed on the
basis of res judicata. Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 6) to the R&R. As set forth below, the R&R
will be adopted and Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND

This is Plaintiff’s third case against, among others, her former employer Northeast Florida
Health Services, Inc. (“NFHS”). The first case, Case No. 6:13-cv-00655-Orl-41DAB (the “655
Case”), asserted claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (655 Case Am.
Compl., Doc. 23), and serves as the basis for the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the
current case be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. In this case, Plaintiff brings the
same employment-based claims against NFHS but asserts the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

Page 1 of 4

rather than Title VII. Plaintiff has also added four individuals who were employed by NFHS with
Plaintiff as Defendants.
Summary judgement was granted in favor of NFHS in the 655 Case, (655 Case, Doc. 53),
and Plaintiff appealed, (655 Case, Doc. 54). When Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal was denied, (655 Case, Doc. 59), Plaintiff initiated this case, reasserting her employment
discrimination claims. 1
II.

ANALYSIS

In his well-reasoned R&R, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are barred
by res judicata. In her Objections, Plaintiff argues that her Complaint should not be dismissed on
that basis because (1) there was no final judgment on the merits of her previous claims, (2) the
parties in this case and the previous case are not identical, and (3) her claims in this case are based
on a different statute than those in her previous case. Plaintiff’s objections are legally incorrect.
Plaintiff first argues that there was no judgment on the merits of the 655 Case because the
decision granting summary judgment in favor of NFHS is currently pending on appeal. This
argument has no legal basis. “The established rule in the federal courts is that a final judgment
retains all of its res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal.” Jaffree v. Wallace, 837
F.2d 1461, 1467 (11th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted); see also Yacht Club on the Intracoastal
Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 12-81275-CV, 2013 WL 6189181, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Nov. 26, 2013) (“That the judgment is on appeal does not vitiate its finality.”).
As to the addition of allegedly supervisory personnel, the R&R thoroughly explains why
such an addition is insufficient to overcome res judicata. (R&R at 4–5). Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims

1

In the meantime, Plaintiff filed the second of three cases against NFHS, 6:14-cv-1062Orl-41DAB, asserting a myriad of incomprehensible claims, including claims under both Title VII
and § 1981.

Page 2 of 4

could have been brought in the prior Title VII Complaint, the claims arose out of a single
employment relationship, and they involve essentially the same claims of discrimination. (Id.
(citing Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009))). The mere fact that
Plaintiff is now trying to assert the same claims against individuals with whom she worked is
insufficient to evade the application of res judicata. (Id.).
Finally, the mere fact that Plaintiff brings claims under § 1981, rather than Title VII is of
no consequence. Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims could have been brought in the previous case and are
nearly identical to the claims previously asserted. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this
Order and the R&R, Plaintiff’s employment-based § 1981 claims are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and
made part of this order.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 20, 2015.

Page 3 of 4

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

Page 4 of 4