Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00714/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00714-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

On October 18, 2005, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title claims with prejudice. (Doc. #

1

16).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FELICIA S. HENDRICKS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-cv-714-F

) (WO)

WARDEN MCDONNELL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Now pending before the court is the pro se plaintiff’s motion to amend filed n October

5, 2005. (Doc. # 14). The plaintiff initially brought this action alleging violations of her

civil rights secured by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Specifically,

she alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender when she was

subjected to differential treatment and terminated from her employment. On October 31,

2005, the court heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion to amend. In her motion, and

at oral argument, the plaintiff was clear that she seeks to clarify her Equal Protection,

differential discipline based on gender claim. The plaintiff is not seeking to amend the

complaint to add a Title VII claim. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s 1

motion to amend is due to be granted. 

Case 2:05-cv-00714-WKW-CSC Document 20 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend (doc. # 14) be and is hereby

GRANTED to the extent that the amendment clarifies the plaintiff’s Equal Protection,

differential discipline based on gender claim. 

Done this 3 day of November, 2005. rd

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00714-WKW-CSC Document 20 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2