Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JENNIFER LOUISE ROZIER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv509-SPM/WCS

NATHANIEL GALLON

and GREG REED,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The pro se Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint, doc. 11. Plaintiff has

been directed in three separate orders, docs. 4, 8, and 10, that her complaints must

comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) and Plaintiff was

ordered to set forth the factual allegations of her case in separately numbered

paragraphs. Plaintiff was advised that compliance with the rule is not optional. See doc

10, p. 1. Plaintiff was also advised that if she wanted to continue with her case, she

must comply and she was further advised that opportunities to submit a complaint were

not unlimited. Id., at 2. Plaintiff has once again failed to comply with court orders and

the Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Page 2 of 3

Beyond this procedural deficiency, Plaintiff's third amended complaint alleges

that the two Defendants, both of whom are officers with the Florida Highway Patrol,

stopped her vehicle. Plaintiff was stopped for having a "busted out headlight" and she

was directed to provide proof of insurance, registration, and warned that if she lied to

them, she was "going to jail" and her car would be confiscated. At another point,

Plaintiff indicates the officers "falsely" accused her of taking them on a "high speed

chase." Plaintiff contends she was so upset with the way she was treated, she became

ill and had an anxiety attack. Plaintiff claims the officers delayed calling 911 to provide

her with assistance. Doc. 11. Plaintiff claims the officers interfered "with [her] daily

process." Id., at 3. 

 Plaintiff has not alleged facts which show a Constitutional violation. In Plaintiff's

statement of claims, she alleges a violation of "Title VII" which is not correct. However,

construed liberally, Plaintiff's claims would necessarily fall under the Fourth

Amendment. Nevertheless, law enforcement officials may lawfully stop a vehicle for

traffic infractions, such as having faulty headlights. The allegations reveal a basis for

the stop, and Plaintiff does not dispute that reason. Plaintiff is upset with the treatment

she received and the way the officers spoke to her. However, the Constitution does not

mandate that all persons conduct themselves in a polite and respectful manner; it does

not require civility and is "not a font of tort law." Peterson v. Baker, 504 F.3d 1331,

1340 (11th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff alleges only unprofessional conduct, not a constitutional

violation. 

A successful section 1983 action requires that Plaintiff show she was "deprived

of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law." Harvey v. Harvey, 949

Case No. 4:10cv509-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149,

155-56, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978)). Plaintiff has not presented facts

which reveal that any constitutional right was violated. There have already been

sufficient opportunities provided to Plaintiff to present a viable complaint.1 Further leave

to amend should not be provided and this case should be dismissed for failure to state a

claim. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's third

amended complaint, doc. 11, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 6, 2011.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

1

 It is also noted that the claim alleged arises on about September 6 or 7, 2006,

and the initial complaint was noted filed until November 15, 2010. Doc. 1. The claim is

probably barred by the four year statute of limitations. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235,

109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938,

85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Rindley v. Gallagher, 890 F.Supp. 1540, 1549, n. 1 (S.D. Fla.

1995) (citing Wilson).

Case No. 4:10cv509-SPM/WCS