[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14997

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00564-RH-CAS

JAMES CRAIG CLAMPETT, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(October 18, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

James Clampett appeals the summary judgment in favor of his former 

employer, the Agency for Health Care Administration, and against his complaint

of retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000e-3, and the Florida Civil Rights 

Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10. Clampett complained that his supervisor, Mercedes 

Bosque, forced him to resign in retaliation for reporting that she was unfairly 

critical of his work. The district court ruled that Clampett failed to establish a 

prima facie case of retaliation and, in the alternative, that the Agency provided a 

legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for Clampett’s termination. We affirm.

We review a summary judgment de novo and view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Crawford v. City of Fairburn, Ga., 482 

F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We can 

affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Fort, 638 F.3d 

1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2011).

Clampett failed to prove that he engaged in a statutorily protected activity.

Clampett never reported that he was a victim of gender discrimination. See Coutu 

v. Martin Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1074 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Unfair 

treatment, absent discrimination based on race, sex, or national origin, is not an 

Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

unlawful employment practice under Title VII.”). Karen Chang testified that 

Clampett did not mention gender when complaining about being “written up too 

much” and that Clampett never stated that other employees were being treated 

more favorably than him. And Clampett acknowledged that he never told Chang 

that he thought that he was being treated differently because he was a man.

Even if Clampett had engaged in a statutorily protected activity, he failed to 

prove that the legitimate reason given for his termination was a pretext for 

retaliation. The Agency hired Clampett for a one-year probationary period to audit 

its providers’ Medicaid cost reports. Bosque testified that she terminated Clampett 

because he “was not improving” and required constant supervision. And the 

Agency supplemented Bosque’s testimony with copies of emails documenting 

Clampett’s repetitious mistakes and insolence to supervisors, his corrected audit 

papers, and his six-month written evaluation in which he scored low for interdepartmental communications. Clampett fails to “meet the reason proffered [for his 

discharge] head on and rebut it.” Crawford, 482 F.3d at 1308. Clampett argues that 

Bosque attempted to “dig up dirt” on him, but Bosque’s decision to inquire if 

another government agency had problems with Clampett does not establish that the 

reason proffered by the Agency lacks any basis in fact or was not the actual 

motivation for his termination. Clampett failed to provide any evidence to establish 

that the Agency terminated him for a reason other than his poor job performance. 

Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the Agency.

Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 4 of 4