Scroggins v. Airgas USA LLC

Filing 19

Order Accepting 18 Findings and Recommendations on 5 Motion Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Airgas USA LLC. Accordingly, 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted; Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are dismisse d without prejudice; and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his pleadings. By 6/20/24, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations. If Plaintiff wishes to allege any new claims, he must first comply with Rule 15(a)(2) by seeking and obtaining leave of court or Defendant's consent. Failure to do so will result in any new claims being stricken without further notice. Further, failure of Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 6/20/24, will result in his claims and this action being dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 6/5/2024) (chmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RONNIE SCROGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AIRGAS USA, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1558-L

ORDER
On February 21, 2024, The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 18) was entered, recommending that the court grant
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) but dismiss without prejudice all of Plaintiff’s
employment law claims against Defendant based on alleged disparate treatment, hostile work
environment, and retaliation under federal law. The magistrate judge further recommends that, if
Plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies identified within 14 days of the undersigned’s acceptance of
the Report, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant should be dismissed with prejudice upon
Defendant’s reurging. No objections to the Report were filed by Plaintiff or Defendant.
In responding to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff requested to amend his pleadings
regarding his retaliation claim. The decision to allow amendment of a party’s pleadings is within
the sound discretion of the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Norman v.
Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In determining whether to
allow an amendment of the pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2), a court considers the following: “undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance

Order – Page 1

of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Schiller v. Physicians
Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Consideration of these factors weigh in favor of allowing Plaintiff to amend his pleadings.
Although he did not file any response or objections to the Report, Plaintiff has not previously
amended his pleadings. Additionally, while Plaintiff is represented by counsel, * the court agrees
with the magistrate judge that it is unclear whether he has stated his “best case.”
Accordingly, having considered the Motion to Dismiss, pleadings, file, record in this case,
and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are
correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court, therefore, grants Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 5) and dismisses without prejudice all claims by Plaintiff in this action. By
June 20, 2024, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in
the Report. If Plaintiff wishes to allege any new claims not previously included in his Complaint
(Doc. 1), he must first comply with Rule 15(a)(2) by seeking and obtaining leave of court or
Defendant’s consent. Failure to do so will result in any new claims being stricken without further
notice. Further, failure of Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by June 20, 2024, will result in
his claims and this action being dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
It is so ordered this 5th day of June, 2024.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

*

The Report mistakenly indicated that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.

Order – Page 2