Order – Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BARBARA DIXON, §

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-325-L

 § 

TRANSPORT AMERICA TRUCKING §

and HIRERIGHT, LLC, §

 § 

Defendants. § 

ORDER

Before the court are Defendant HireRight, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint and Defendant Transport America’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (collectively, “Motions”), both filed March 30, 2023 

(Docs. 49, 50). On September 15, 2023, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 62) was entered, recommending that the court grant 

Defendants’ Motions and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for race discrimination and

alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (“FCRA”). Because leave was not 

sought to assert any new claims, the Report recommends that Plaintiff’s new negligence claim and 

new claim for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”), brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, be stricken. 

In addition, the Report notes that Plaintiff’s response to the Motions was liberally construed 

by the magistrate judge as a motion for leave to amend her complaint and granted. The Report 

nevertheless recommends that the court not give Plaintiff a further opportunity to amend her 

pleadings because: (1) she has “twice amended her complaint in this matter, and her response to 

the motions to dismiss was construed as a motion to amend her complaint and granted”; and (2) 

Case 3:22-cv-00325-L Document 63 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 708
Order – Page 2

despite multiple chances to amend and cure the pleading deficiencies, she has not provided any 

additional factual allegations beyond conclusory, unsupported assertions that were included in her 

Original Petition, and she has again failed to state any valid claims upon which relief can be 

granted. The Report, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff has stated her best case, and no further 

opportunity to amend is warranted. No objections or response to the Report was filed by Plaintiff, 

and the deadline for doing so has expired.

Having considered Defendants’ Motions, the Reports, the pleadings, the file, and the record 

in this case, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are 

correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court, therefore, grants Defendants’ Motions

(Docs. 49, 50) and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s FCRA and race discrimination claims. 

The court also strikes Plaintiff’s new negligence and OSHA claims, as leave was not sought to 

assert any new claims in accordance with the undersigned’s prior order. 

Regarding leave to amend, the magistrate judge’s granting Plaintiff leave to amend her 

pleadings and the recommendation to not allow Plaintiff to further amend her pleadings seem 

inconsistent because Plaintiff was not actually allowed to amend her pleadings again as a result of 

the magistrate judge construing her response to the Motions as a motion for leave to amend. The 

court nevertheless agrees that Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to amend her pleadings in this 

case and giving her another opportunity to amend would be futile and unnecessarily delay the 

resolution of this litigation because she appears to have stated her “best case.” Schiller v. 

Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Although Rule 

15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[t]he court should freely give leave 

when justice so requires,” this provision is not without limitation.*

* The decision to allow amendment of a party’s pleadings is within the sound discretion of the district court. Foman v. 

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In 

Case 3:22-cv-00325-L Document 63 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 709
Order – Page 3

It is so ordered this 20th day of October, 2023.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

determining whether to allow an amendment of the pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2), a court considers the following: 

“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, 

[and] futility of amendment.” Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th 

Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Consideration of these factors weigh against allowing Plaintiff to further amend her 

pleadings. Moreover, Plaintiff did not respond to or file objections to the Report to contest the recommended 

disposition of her claims or the magistrate judge’s recommendation to not allow her to further amend.

Case 3:22-cv-00325-L Document 63 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 710