Brown v. CBOCS, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 26 is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 6/12/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

WILLIE LYNN BROWN, pro se,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:11-cv-1308-T-30AEP

CBOCS, INC.,
d/b/a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 26)
and Plaintiff’s Response in opposition (Dkt. 29). The Court, having considered the motion,
response, and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that the motion should be
granted and this case dismissed, with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Pro se Plaintiff Willie Lynn Brown was employed by Defendant CBOCS, Inc.
(“Cracker Barrel”) as a server. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleges claims for race
discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation, in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq.
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s third amended complaint based on its repeated
failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant

also contends that Plaintiff’s allegations do not state viable claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court granted Plaintiff three opportunities to amend his complaint to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite these opportunities, Plaintiff’s third amended
complaint suffers from the same deficiencies. In fact, the third amended complaint is almost
identical to Plaintiff’s two prior amended complaints, with only some stylistic differences
and rearranging of paragraphs. Thus, the third amended complaint is subject to dismissal,
with prejudice.
As Defendant points out, the third amended complaint also fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. On September 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli
issued an eighteen-page Order, discussing Plaintiff’s allegations, the claims he was
attempting to assert, and how the allegations were insufficient to state actionable claims (Dkt.
5). Plaintiff’s third amended complaint does not remedy these deficiencies, which also
subjects it to dismissal, with prejudice.
In sum, Plaintiff received three chances to amend his complaint to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state allegations sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff’s
third amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the former complaints, and
any further amendment would be futile at this point.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 26) is hereby granted.

2.

This case is dismissed with prejudice.
Page 2 of 3

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending
motions as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 12, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2011\11-cv-1308.mtdismiss26.frm

Page 3 of 3