Currie v. Univ. of S. Fla.

Full title: SONIA CURRIE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Date published: Apr 6, 2015

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-1417-T-17TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-1417-T-17TGW

04-06-2015

SONIA CURRIE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, Defendant.

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH United States District Judge

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. 11 Report and Recommendation
Dkt. 12 Objection

The assigned Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11) on the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7) and Motion to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 10) recommending that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

Plaintiff Sonia Currie has filed an Objection. Plaintiff Currie admits that in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff "ranted," and offers a compressed version of Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff Currie argues that an employee of Defendant University of South Florida treated Plaintiff Currie maliciously by telling Plaintiff that Plaintiff Currie did not meet the qualifications for a grant for which Plaintiff Currie qualified. Plaintiff Currie is suing Defendant University of South Florida for an award of an undetermined amount of damages.

Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed initially because the Complaint did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, in that there was not "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" or "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." The assigned Magistrate Judge found that the Amended Complaint was deficient in the same manner, and therefore recommended dismissal. Further, because the assigned Magistrate Judge did not perceive of any additional amendment which would permit this suit, the recommendation was for dismissal without further leave to amend.

Plaintiff Currie is proceeding pro se; the Court therefore construes Plaintiff's pleadings more liberally than those of a represented party. A pro se litigant is required to conform to procedural rules. Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11^th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff Currie did not cure the deficiencies of the Complaint by filing the Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Currie alleges a violation of her civil rights. To state a claim under Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that he or she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law. Kohler v. Garlets, 578 Fed. Appx. 862, 866 (11^th Cir. 2014) (citing Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999)). The Court has independently examined the pleadings and the record, but finds that Plaintiff Currie has not stated sufficient facts to establish a civil rights claim and that permitting additional amendment would be futile. The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation, and overrules Plaintiff's Objection. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11), which is adopted and incorporated by reference, denies the Motion to Proceed IFP and dismisses this case with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida on this 6^th day of April, 2015.

/s/_________

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH

United States District Judge
Copies to:
All parties and counsel of record