Puckett et al v. Board of Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Gainesville, Inc. et al
Filing
58
ORDER approving and adopting the 53 Report and Recommendation as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The original Complaint did not clearly state a cause of action for retaliation under the ADA. The briefing of the parties andthe Courts previous rulings made clear that an ADA retaliation claim was not included in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the good cause requirement of Rule 16 for an amendment at this time. Plaintiff's 49 Motion to Amend is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 04/15/15. (sk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DAVID PUCKETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF
GAINESVILLE, INC. and FIRST
BAPTIST CHURCH OF
GAINESVILLE,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13-CV-0131-RWS
ORDER
This case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and
Recommendation [53] of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller. After reviewing the
Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Objections [56] thereto, the Court
enters the following Order.
In his Objections, Plaintiff asserts that a claim for retaliation under the
Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is clearly stated in the original
Complaint if one reviews the Complaint in its entirety. Therefore, Plaintiff
asserts that the Court’s previous decisions failing to recognize the presence of
the claim were in error. Further, Plaintiff argues that if the claim is not included
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
in the original Complaint, he should be permitted to amend his Complaint in
order to clearly state his ADA retaliation claim.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments and finds that each of
these arguments is addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The Court
receives the Report and Recommendation with approval and adopts it as the
Opinion and Order of this Court. The original Complaint did not clearly state a
cause of action for retaliation under the ADA. The briefing of the parties and
the Court’s previous rulings made clear that an ADA retaliation claim was not
included in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the good cause
requirement of Rule 16 for an amendment at this time.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [49] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 15th
day of April, 2015.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
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?