McElroy v. Hyatt Regency Savannah

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING re #7 Report and Recommendations dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Chief District Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/3/24. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
TODD MCELROY,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:24-cv-113

v.
HYATT REGENCY SAVANNAH,
Defendant.
ORDER
After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's June 12, 2024, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 7), to which objections have been filed,
(doc. 8).

As explained below, McElroy’s Objection is meritless.

Accordingly, the Court

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
McElroy’s “Objection” does not even mention the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, much less identify any defect in his determination that, because the Americans
with Disabilities Act does not provide for individual actions for damages, McElroy’s claim fails.
(See generally doc. 8; see also doc. 7, pp. 3-5 (citing, inter alia., Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280,
1283 (11th Cir. 1998)).) The document McElroy submitted is a cut-and-paste of material from
two websites. The bulk of McElroy’s submission is copied verbatim from media coverage of a
settlement between the United States Department of Justice and Marriott Hotels. (Compare doc.
8, pp. 1-3 (beginning “The allegations stemmed from a 2010 Justice Department regulation . . . .”),
with Shaun Heasley, Marriott Agrees to Better Accommodate Guests with Disabilities,

disabilityscoop.com (June 11, 2024), https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2024/06/11/marriottagrees-to-better-accommodate-guests-with-disabilities/30913/.)

The first paragraph of the

submission is copied, again verbatim, from coverage of the Supreme Court’s consideration of
Acheson Hotels v. Laufer. (Compare doc. 8 at 1 (paragraph beginning “A Justice Department
regulation known as the “Reservation Rule” . . . .”), with Madiba K. Dennie, Rights Without
Remedies

Might

As

Well

Not

Exist,

ballsandstrikes.org

(Sept.

https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/acheson-hotels-v-laufer-supreme-court-preview/

27,
(the

2023),
third

paragraph of the article states: “A Justice Department regulation known as the ‘Reservation Rule’
. . . .”). Other than being, generally, about the obligation of hotels to provide certain information
concerning disability accommodations, it is, charitably, unclear how any of the material McElroy
has presented is intended to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The “objection” is,
therefore, meritless.
While the Court is not concerned with McElroy’s flagrant plagiarism, the utter irrelevance
of the submission bears on the Magistrate Judge’s admonition concerning McElroy’s litigation in
this Court. The Magistrate Judge explained that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Acheson Hotels,
which McElroy was clearly aware of, should have informed him that his claim for monetary
damages under the ADA was meritless. (See doc. 7 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge further noted
that, even if the Court assumed that McElroy simply misread Acheson Hotels in this instance, this
case forms part of a pattern of filing “repetitive and/or meritless cases in this Court.” (Id. at 5-6
(collecting cases).) Although the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment that no
protective action is necessary at this time, it reiterates the Magistrate Judge’s admonition to
McElroy that “further meritless filings may subject him to restrictions on his ability to file further
cases, proceed in forma pauperis, or both.” (Id. at 7); see also, e.g., Procup v. Strickland, 792

2

F.2d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986) (“The court has a responsibility to prevent single litigants from
unnecessarily encroaching upon the judicial machinery needed by others.”).
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of July, 2024.

R. STAN BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3