Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_11-cv-00643/USCOURTS-alsd-1_11-cv-00643-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DR. RONALD CLARKE, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 11-00643-CG-B 

 : 

TOLBERT ENTERPRISES, LLC, : 

et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This action is before the Court on Defendants Tolbert 

Enterprises, LLC and Sopramco, Inc.’s Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 

19, 22) and Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 28), which the Court is 

construing as a Motion to Amend. The motions have been referred 

to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). Upon consideration, the undersigned recommends 

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend be granted, and that 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be dismissed as moot. 

Plaintiff Dr. Ronald Clark filed this action alleging that 

Defendants Tolbert Enterprises, LLC and Sopramco, Inc. 

discriminated against him on account of his race by 

intentionally interfering with his right to redeem certain real 

property in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In seeking the 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants argue that 

Plaintiff lacks standing and that his claims are barred by the 

Case 1:11-cv-00643-CG-B Document 32 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 6
2

statute of limitations and res judicata (Docs. 19, 22). 

Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has failed to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted and that he has failed to 

state a claim for discrimination with the required specificity. 

(Id.) In his response, Plaintiff requests leave to amend his 

Complaint in order to address the issues raised by Defendants 

and to possibly add an additional defendant. (Doc. 28). 

Defendants, in turn, argue that Plaintiff’s request for leave to 

amend should be denied because aside from his conclusory 

assertions, Plaintiff has not provided any substantive 

information about the proposed amendment. (Docs. 29, 30). 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend the 

party’s pleading as a matter of course within twenty-one (21) 

days after serving it or if the pleading is one which a 

responsive pleading is required, twenty-one (21) days after 

service of the responsive pleading or twenty-one (21) days after 

service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e) or (f), whichever is 

earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, the party must 

seek leave of court or written consent of the adverse party in 

order to amend the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The 

decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within 

the sole discretion of the district court. Laurie v. Ala. Court 

of Crim. Appeals, 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (llth Cir. 2001). 

Notwithstanding the court’s discretion, Rule 15(a) directs 

Case 1:11-cv-00643-CG-B Document 32 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 6
3

courts to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In considering a motion for leave to amend, 

the court may choose not to allow a party to amend “when the 

amendment would prejudice the defendant, follows undue delays, 

or is futile.” Campbell v. Emory Clinic, 166 F.3d 1157, 1162 

(llth Cir. 1999). 

Because Plaintiff’s request to amend comes outside of the 

window provided in Rule 15(a)(1), leave of Court is required 

absent the written consent of the adverse parties. As noted 

supra, Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request to amend and 

essentially argue that Plaintiff has failed to provide any 

specifics regarding his proposed amendment and that any such 

amendment would be futile. However, the undersigned finds that 

based on arguments made in Defendants’ motions seeking 

dismissal, it is conceivable that Plaintiff can amend his 

Complaint so as to correct some of the alleged deficiencies. 

For instance, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to 

allege facts that demonstrate that he had an interest in the 

subject land that would have bestowed upon him the right of 

redemption under ALA. Code § 6-5-248. Defendants also assert 

that Plaintiff fails to allege facts that suggest that he had 

any communications with Defendants about redeeming the property 

or that Defendants were aware of his race. While the absence of 

such facts may prove fatal to Plaintiff’s case, it is not clear, 

Case 1:11-cv-00643-CG-B Document 32 Filed 07/18/12 Page 3 of 6
4

at this early juncture, that these deficiencies cannot be 

corrected. Moreover, there is nothing in the record that 

suggests that Defendants would be prejudiced by an amendment or 

that Plaintiff has not been diligent in requesting permission to 

amend his Complaint. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends 

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend be granted and that 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be denied as moot. 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding 

objections to this recommendation. 

DONE this 18th day of July, 2012.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00643-CG-B Document 32 Filed 07/18/12 Page 4 of 6
5

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS 

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION 

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation, or 

anything in it, must, within fourteen days of the date of 

service of this document, file specific written objections with 

the Clerk of this Court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the 

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual 

findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The 

procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of 

the Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 

(June 1, 1997), which provides that: 

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a 

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a 

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing 

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s 

Recommendation” within ten days1 after being served 

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different 

time is established by order. The statement of 

objection shall specify those portions of the 

recommendation to which objection is made and the 

basis for the objection. The objecting party shall 

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing 

the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s 

arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation 

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition 

made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the 

original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, 

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted 

or referred to and incorporated into the brief in 

support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief 

in support of the objection may be deemed an 

abandonment of the objection. 

 1

The Court’s Local rules are being amended to reflect the 

new computations of time as set out in the amendments to the 

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective December 1, 

2009. 

Case 1:11-cv-00643-CG-B Document 32 Filed 07/18/12 Page 5 of 6
6

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a 

Court of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment 

can be appealed. 

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), the 

Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original records in 

this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party 

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the 

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination 

that transcription is necessary is required before the United 

States will pay the cost of the transcript. 

Case 1:11-cv-00643-CG-B Document 32 Filed 07/18/12 Page 6 of 6