UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MARK DERAMO, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-575-O-BP

§

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal Ray’s Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation (“FCR”, ECF No. 19), issued December 1, 2022; and Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

the Recommendation to Dismiss with Prejudice (Objection, ECF No. 22), filed December 20, 

2022. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20), which Plaintiff filed 

on December 6, 2022.

Though objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is due within fourteen days, 

the Court will consider the objection timely given that Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed his response 

via U.S. Postal Service. Because Plaintiff did not seek permission from the Court to amend his 

Complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and prior Order (ECF No. 13), the 

undersigned shall not consider Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). 

Magistrate Judge Ray’s FCR recommends that the undersigned dismiss with prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Magistrate Judge 

Ray found that, even after filing a verified response to the Court’s screening questionnaire, 

Plaintiff had “plead[] his best case” for a potential claim under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act and that no subsequent amendments to his Complaint could bring about an actionable claim 

Case 4:22-cv-00575-O Document 23 Filed 12/23/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 170
2

under that statute. FCR 7–8. The Court agrees and is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s objection that 

the FCR “fail[s] to correctly state the facts which plaintiff alleged.” Objection 1, ECF No. 22. 

Having compared Plaintiff’s statement of the facts in his Complaint, responses to the 

Court’s questionnaire, and his Opposition to the FCR to Judge Ray’s articulation of the facts as set 

forth in the FCR, the undersigned disagrees that the FCR misstated the facts. Accepting the facts 

as Plaintiff alleges them (i.e., that American Airlines “regarded” Plaintiff as having a disability by 

requiring him—and all other passengers onboard—to wear a face covering), the undersigned 

District Judge agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Plaintiff “has not alleged sufficient 

facts to show that he is entitled to recover on his discrimination or retaliation claims under Title 

III of the ADA.” FCR 8, ECF No. 19. 

As a final matter, Plaintiff objects to the FCR on the grounds that Judge Ray recommends 

dismissal with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a statutory provision Plaintiff contends 

applies only to prisoners and is therefore inapplicable to his case. Objection 1, ECF No. 22. 

However, the Fifth Circuit has indicated that § 1915 does not a provision that applies exclusively 

to prisoners. See Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1997) (“There is no indication in the 

statute or the legislative history of the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] that Congress meant to curb 

[in forma pauperis] suits by nonprisoners.”).

Thus, after reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections 

thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge believes that the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Case 4:22-cv-00575-O Document 23 Filed 12/23/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 171
3

SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of December, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00575-O Document 23 Filed 12/23/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 172