Lane v. Lew

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/12/16. (ddm) Modified on 7/12/2016 to edit text (ddm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DON W. LANE,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:15-cv-1767-WSD-JFK

JACOB J. LEW, Secretary of the
Treasury,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff Don W. Lane (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
filed his Complaint [1], asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., for race discrimination, sex
discrimination, and retaliation. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10-11). Plaintiff also asserted claims
for unlawful harassment and, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., for Defendant Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew’s
(“Defendant”) failure to accommodate his disability. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 12, 39, 48-50).
On November 10, 2015, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint [7] (“Motion to Dismiss”) and, on January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed his
motion for leave to file an amended complaint [9] (“Motion to Amend”).
On April 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Janet F. King issued her Non-Final

Report and Recommendation [11] (“R&R”), recommending that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss be granted because Plaintiff’s Complaint violated Rules 8(a)(2)
and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 10(b).
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s “vague allegations mixed with legal
conclusions make it impossible for the court to determine what claims Plaintiff is
attempting to assert and what specific factual allegations support each claim.”
(R&R at 8). The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, finding
that the proposed amended complaint did “not cure the numerous deficiencies
found in the original complaint.” (Id. at 9). The Magistrate Judge recommended
that Plaintiff be given leave to file, within twenty-one (21) days, an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On June 14, 2016, the Court adopted [13] the Magistrate Judge’s R&R,
granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
permitted Plaintiff to file, on or before July 5, 2016, an amended complaint that
complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court warned Plaintiff
that, “should he fail to file an amended complaint as described, this action may be
dismissed.” ([13] at 9). The July 5, 2016, deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has
not filed an amended complaint. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

2

For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2016.

3