Gordon v. James Madison University

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, dismissing plaintiff's claim for monetary relief, and directig clerk to file second amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 5/24/13. (kld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
HARRISONBURG DIVISION
PAMELA J. GORDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
Civil Action No. 5:12cv00124
)
)
) By: Michael F. Urbanski
)
United States District Judge
)
)
ORDER

This matter was referred to the Honorable B. Waugh Crigler, United States Magistrate
Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for proposed findings of fact and a recommended
disposition. The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on April 23, 2013,
recommending that plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief against James Madison University be
dismissed with prejudice and further recommending that plaintiff be given twenty days to file an
amended complaint complying with the pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 and 10.1 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, objected to the recommendation that
her claim for monetary relief be dismissed with prejudice, asking instead that it be dismissed
without prejudice. She provided no explanation or basis for her objection. Plaintiff further filed
an “Answer to Report and Recommendation” along with an attached exhibit entitled “Amended
Complaint,” see Dkt. # 18, that the court will construe collectively as a proposed second
amended complaint.
The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, the objection to the report, and the
relevant case law and, in so doing, made a de novo determination of those portions of the report
1

The magistrate judge found that given the current narrative state of plaintiff’s complaint, he could not determine
whether plaintiff stated a plausible cause of action. The undersigned agrees.

to which the plaintiff objected. The court finds that the magistrate judge was correct in
concluding that plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief should be dismissed with prejudice.2 As an
agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, James Madison University is shielded by Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity, Lee-Thomas v. Prince George’s Cnty. Public Schs., 666 F.3d
244, 248 (4th Cir. 2012), and that immunity has been neither abrogated, Kimel v. Florida Bd. of
Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 91-92 (2000), nor waived, see, e.g., Amaram v. Virginia State Univ., No.
3:06-CV-444, 2006 WL 6198447, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2006). The court further agrees with
the magistrate judge that given plaintiff’s pro se status, it is appropriate to allow her an
opportunity to amend her complaint and comply with the pleading requirements set forth in
Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiff has filed a proposed second amended complaint which contains a
caption with the court’s name and the names of the parties as well as numbered paragraphs,
which more closely complies with the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The report and recommendation (Dkt. # 15) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief against defendant are DISMISSED with
prejudice;
3. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 and 10; and
4. The Clerk is directed to docket collectively the “Answer to Report and
Recommendation” and attached exhibit entitled “Amended Complaint,” see Dkt. # 18, as
plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

2

Plaintiff offers no reason why this claim should be dismissed without prejudice, and no amendment to the
complaint could cure the defect.

2

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to plaintiff and to counsel of
record.
Entered: May 24, 2013

/s/ Michael F. Urbanski
Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge

3