[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11446

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RUFUS HAMILTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FULTON COUNTY SCHOOLS, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-01437-LMM

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11446

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Hamilton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his amended complaint against his former employer, the Fulton County Schools (“FCS”). Hamilton purported 

to assert claims against FCS for unlawful discrimination based on 

his race and age, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (“Title VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) (“ADEA”). No reversible error has 

been shown; we affirm.

I.

Hamilton filed pro se this civil action in April 2021. Hamilton 

filed his initial complaint against FCS using the district court’s “Pro 

Se Employment Discrimination Complaint Form.” On the complaint form, Hamilton checked boxes indicating (1) that he was 

bringing claims for violations of Title VII and the ADEA; (2) the 

alleged discrimination took place on 16 December 2020; and (3) 

that his lawsuit involved a failure-to-promote and the termination 

of his employment. Hamilton checked a box indicating that he believed he was discriminated against because of his race and identified himself as being black. Hamilton left un-checked the box indicating that he believed he was discriminated against based on his 

age. Nor did Hamilton provide his date of birth or his age on the 

date of the complained-of conduct in December 2020. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 2 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 3

In the section of the form directing plaintiffs to describe the 

essential facts of their case, Hamilton alleged that he was fired “for 

taking home pallets” even though his director purportedly gave 

him permission to do so. Hamilton alleged further that “every 

body was taking trees home as firewood and they still have a job.” 

Hamilton did not identify the race or age of the employees who 

purportedly took home firewood. Hamilton attached to his complaint a notice of right-to-sue letter received from the EEOC: a letter that referenced only a charge of discrimination alleging violations of Title VII. 

FCS moved to dismiss Hamilton’s complaint for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim. 

On 13 May 2021, Hamilton filed pro se a one-page document 

titled “Amend Complaint.” Hamilton sought to add a claim for 

wrongful termination. Hamilton also alleged that he applied for a 

position but that “they” hired “their friend” instead. Hamilton alleged that -- although he was not selected for the position -- he was 

expected to do the work that the newly-hired person did not want 

to do. 

On the same day, Hamilton also filed pro se a one-page document titled “Motion to Not Dismiss.” In that document, Hamilton said again that he was terminated unlawfully for taking pallets 

even though he had permission to do so and stopped when he was 

asked. Hamilton also said again that “they wanted [him] to do the 

work the new guy didn’t want to do.” Hamilton attached a photograph of wood pallets and several letters from FCS’s Supervisor of 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11446

Maintenance discussing Hamilton’s job-performance issues during 

October and November 2020. 

FCS again moved to dismiss Hamilton’s amended complaint

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to 

state a claim.

On 4 June 2021, Hamilton filed pro se a one-page document 

titled “Add to file.” Hamilton said that FCS “clearly falls under Title 

VII.” About his failure-to-promote claim, Hamilton alleged that he 

applied for a position but that Dennis Downs gave the position to 

“his friend” instead. Because the newly-hired person did not want 

to do the job, Hamilton said he was pressured “to do his job with 

the same pay.” Hamilton alleges that “[t]hey came up with this taking from the trash pallet when everybody else taking property 

home as firewood. Trees!!” (emphasis in original). Hamilton then 

attached two photographs showing piles of cut wood. 

A magistrate judge issued a non-final report and recommendation (“R&R”). Construing all of Hamilton’s pro se filings together as a single complaint, the magistrate judge determined that 

Hamilton had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief. The magistrate judge also determined that -- because Hamilton had not provided a copy of his EEOC charge --

Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted properly 

his administrative remedies. Given Hamilton’s pro se status, the 

magistrate judge recommended that Hamilton be given an opportunity to amend his complaint to correct the identified deficiencies. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 4 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 5

Hamilton filed no objections to the R&R. The district court 

adopted the R&R and granted Hamilton leave to file one more 

amended complaint.

On 14 September 2021, Hamilton filed an amended complaint consisting of one page of narrative text. Hamilton asserted 

that he applied for a “lead position” he says he was well-qualified 

for, but that he was passed over in favor of a friend of his immediate supervisor, Dennis Downs. Because the new hire purportedly 

did not want to complete some of his assigned duties, Hamilton 

was expected -- but refused -- to perform those tasks without an 

accompanying pay raise. 

Hamilton also alleged that he was fired for theft after he removed pallets from outside the trash can, even though his director 

had given him permission to do so. Hamilton said he believed taking the pallets would not cause “a problem because several maintenance workers were taking cut trees home for firewood.” Hamilton said he knows the reason he was terminated was not because 

of the pallets but, instead, because he complained about not getting 

the promotion. Hamilton also said, “I did not include race in this 

letter because then [I] would be labeled as a racist.” Never did 

Hamilton mention his race or age, nor the race or age of any of his 

co-workers or supervisors. Nor did Hamilton attach a copy of his 

EEOC charge to his amended complaint. 

FCS again moved to dismiss Hamilton’s amended complaint.

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11446

A magistrate judge issued a final R&R recommending that 

the district court grant FCS’s motion and dismiss Hamilton’s 

amended complaint. The magistrate judge determined that -- despite the district court’s detailed instructions -- Hamilton’s 

amended complaint still failed to allege factual content sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for unlawful discrimination. In the alternative, the magistrate judge determined that Hamilton’s claims were 

subject to dismissal because Hamilton had failed to demonstrate 

that he had exhausted properly his administrative remedies. 

Hamilton objected to the R&R.1 The district court overruled Hamilton’s objections, adopted the R&R, and dismissed the 

case. 

II.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to 

state a claim, accepting all properly alleged facts as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Butler 

v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012).

1 In his objections, Hamilton alleged -- for the first time -- that he was treated 

differently from a white employee whom Hamilton said is still employed after 

taking home cut-up trees to use as firewood. In reviewing the R&R, the district court declined to consider this new factual allegation, noting that Hamilton omitted this fact from his amended complaint and from his response to 

FSC’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, Hamilton raises no challenge to the district court’s refusal to consider facts raised for the first time in his objections 

to the R&R. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 6 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 7

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (quotations omitted). To state a plausible claim for relief, a 

plaintiff must go beyond pleading merely the “sheer possibility” of 

unlawful activity by a defendant and must offer “factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words, 

the plaintiff’s “[f ]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right 

to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 

will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Nor does a complaint suffice 

if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (quotations and alteration omitted).

A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is construed more liberally than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Powell v. Lennon, 

914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). Despite this leniency toward 

pro se litigants, courts may not step into the role of de facto counsel 

or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an 

action.” GJR Invs. v. Cty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 

1998).

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or 

otherwise discriminate against any person “with respect to his 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11446

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of the person’s race. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The 

ADEA, meanwhile, prohibits employers from discriminating 

against an employee who is at least 40 years old because of the employee’s age. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), 631(a). 

The district court committed no error in dismissing Hamilton’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court applied properly the federal pleading standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8, and in Iqbal and Twombly. 

Accepting the allegations in Hamilton’s amended complaint 

as true and liberally construing them in Hamilton’s favor, Hamilton 

failed to allege facts demonstrating plausibly that he was discriminated against unlawfully in violation of Title VII or the ADEA. 

About his ADEA claims, Hamilton alleged no facts from 

which we can infer reasonably that he was discriminated against 

unlawfully based on his age. Nowhere in Hamilton’s amended 

complaint did Hamilton allege that he was at least 40 years’ old at 

the time of the complained-of employment acts. Hamilton has 

thus failed to allege facts showing that he belonged to the class of 

persons protected by the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Nor has 

Hamilton alleged the ages of the pertinent decisionmakers, his coworkers, or the person hired for the “lead position.” On this record, the district court dismissed properly Hamilton’s claims under 

the ADEA for failure to state a claim. 

We next address Hamilton’s claims for race discrimination 

under Title VII. About his failure-to-promote claim, Hamilton 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 8 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 9

alleged only that he applied for a position for which he was qualified and that the position was given to a “friend” of his direct supervisor. Never has Hamilton identified the race or qualifications 

of the person who was hired for the position or identified the race 

of the person who made the hiring decision. In other words, Hamilton alleged no specific facts from which we can infer reasonably 

that the hiring decision was motivated by unlawful race discrimination. That the hiring decision might have been made based on 

personal friendships does not support -- and seems to cut against -

- a plausible inference that the decision was driven by a racially discriminatory animus. 

About the termination of his employment, Hamilton said 

he was fired for taking home pallets even though he was given permission to do so. According to Hamilton, the real reason he was 

fired was because he complained about not getting the promotion. 

Hamilton alleged no facts about the race of the decisionmaker or 

about the race, work history, or disciplinary record of those coworkers he said were undisciplined after taking home firewood. 

Nor has Hamilton alleged specific facts about his promotion-related complaints, including the identity of the person(s) to whom 

he complained or whether he indicated in his complaints that he 

believed the hiring decision was motivated unlawfully by race.

Without additional factual enhancement, Hamilton’s implied assertions that FCS’s decision to terminate his employment 

was motivated by unlawful race discrimination or was made in retaliation for Hamilton’s promotion-related complaints are too 

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11446

speculative to state a plausible claim against FCS for violation of 

Title VII. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

On these pleadings and for these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hamilton’s amended complaint pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2

AFFIRMED.

2 Because we conclude that the district court dismissed properly Hamilton’s 

amended complaint for failure to state a claim, we need not address the district 

court’s alternative ruling that Hamilton’s amended complaint was subject to 

dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 10 of 10