Court Opinion

ID: 9368215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 15:00:39.137679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.398397
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10762     Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 02/03/2023    Page: 1 of 14

                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                   No. 22-10762
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

        BRENDA LEE THOMAS,
                                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,
        versus
        CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
        VICTOR HILL,
        Sheriff of Clayton County, GA, in his official and individual capac-
        ities,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10762        Document: 22-1        Date Filed: 02/03/2023        Page: 2 of 14

        2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-10762

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Georgia
                       D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-04553-MHC
                             ____________________

        Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Brenda Lee Thomas, proceeding pro se (as she did before
        the district court), appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her
        claims against the Clayton County Board of Commissioners and
        Sheriff Victor Hill. After careful review, we affirm.

            FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1

                Thomas worked as a clerk at the Clayton County Jail. In
        December 2017, Sheriff Hill notified all Sheriff’s Office employ-
        ees—including those at the jail—that work schedules would be
        changing from twelve- to eight-hour shifts. Major Keith McLaugh-
        lin, the jail’s administrator, indicated that clerks could bid on new
        shift assignments starting February 10. And Sheriff Hill said new
        shift assignments would be “based . . . mainly on seniority.”

        1
         The facts—which we take as true and construe in the light most favorable to
        Thomas—come from the first amended complaint and its attachments. See
        Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1327 (11th Cir. 2019); Hoefling v. City of Mi-
        ami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016).
USCA11 Case: 22-10762     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023    Page: 3 of 14

        22-10762               Opinion of the Court                       3

               By then, Thomas was the second most senior clerical em-
        ployee—she started working for the jail in 2000—but she wasn’t
        given the opportunity to bid for her new shift. Instead, on January
        25, Thomas was told she was assigned to the night shift (10:00 p.m.
        to 6:00 a.m.). In contrast, younger jail employees with less senior-
        ity were able to bid for the shift of their choice.
               Sheriff Hill later asserted, in response to Thomas’s eventual
        EEOC charge, that he assigned her to the night shift because three
        hallway interactions—two in which Thomas “rolled her eyes and
        ‘sucked her teeth’” at him, and a third in which she “huffed” and
        mocked his height under her breath—led him to believe she lacked
        the attitude and customer service skills required to interact with
        the public. At the time, however, Thomas was told only that “[t]he
        directive came from Ass[istant] Chief Southerland through Major
        McLaughlin,” with “[n]o explanation . . . given.” Because nobody
        could provide a reason why Thomas was treated differently, on
        February 22, she filed a grievance with the board of county com-
        missioners. She complained that she was “singled out” during the
        change to eight-hour shifts and asked to be “[t]reated fairly and
        placed on a[] 6am–2pm shift based on [her] seniority.”
               Thomas alleged that, from then on, she “suffered continu-
        ous harassment from her immediate chain of command on a day
        to day basis,” resulting in a “toxic and hostile work environment.”
        And so, a week later, she filed an EEOC charge contending that her
        employer—identified as the Clayton County Sheriff Department—
        had discriminated against her based on her age.
USCA11 Case: 22-10762      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023      Page: 4 of 14

        4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10762

               After Thomas’s EEOC charge, the board “refused to enter-
        tain” her grievance, the “toxic work environment” worsened, and
        Sheriff Hill directed Thomas’s supervisors to treat her harshly and
        “find or create a reason” to fire her. Then, on July 31, 2018,
        Thomas was fired. Her termination notice and accompanying dis-
        ciplinary action form listed, as reasons for the separation, violations
        of three rules and regulations: (1) “#7.08 Personal Telephone Re-
        quired”; (2) “#7.27 Promote Harmony”; and (3) “General Order
        #2017-01(7) Toxic Leadership/Employee Policy (modified).” That
        same day, the sheriff issued a criminal trespass warning that barred
        Thomas from entering the sheriff’s office or Clayton County
        Courthouse without a pre-arranged appointment.
                Thomas appealed her termination to the board. In Septem-
        ber 2018, she also filed an amended EEOC charge, asserting both
        age discrimination and retaliation. Finally, in November 2020,
        Thomas sued the board and Sheriff Hill, in both his individual and
        official capacities. Her complaint asserted discrimination claims
        under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Ge-
        netic Information Nondiscrimination Act; discrimination and retal-
        iation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act;
        and a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. She alleged that she was
        treated differently during the shift-change process, then harassed
        and ultimately fired because she complained to the board and the
        EEOC about the unfair treatment.
              Because Thomas was proceeding in forma pauperis, the
        magistrate judge reviewed her complaint sua sponte pursuant to
USCA11 Case: 22-10762      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023     Page: 5 of 14

        22-10762               Opinion of the Court                         5

        28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B). In a non-final report, the magis-
        trate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice of Thomas’s
        non-Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims for failure to
        state a claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The magistrate judge
        also recommended that Thomas’s section 1983 claim be dismissed
        as time-barred. But the magistrate judge concluded that Thomas
        had pleaded arguable Age Discrimination in Employment Act dis-
        crimination and retaliation claims because she alleged that she was
        over forty years old, wasn’t permitted to bid for her new shift like
        her younger coworkers, and was harassed and then fired after com-
        plaining about the disparate shift-change treatment.
               The magistrate judge advised Thomas that she could file ob-
        jections within fourteen days—and that if she failed to do so, she
        would forfeit her right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
        factual findings and legal conclusions (other than for plain error re-
        view). After Thomas didn’t file objections, the district court
        adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed without
        prejudice Thomas’s non-Age Discrimination in Employment Act
        claims.
                After Thomas’s complaint was served on the defendants,
        they moved jointly to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The mag-
        istrate judge issued a final report recommending that the district
        court grant the defendants’ motion and dismiss Thomas’s remain-
        ing claims with prejudice because neither of the defendants was
        subject to suit in federal court under the Age Discrimination in Em-
        ployment Act. The magistrate judge found that, even though
USCA11 Case: 22-10762       Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023      Page: 6 of 14

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10762

        Thomas’s termination notice listed the board as her employer, the
        sheriff was Thomas’s employer because he had exclusive authority
        under Georgia law to make personnel decisions impacting her—
        and so her claims against the board failed as a matter of law. The
        magistrate judge also concluded that the Act permitted only em-
        ployer, not individual, liability—so Thomas’s individual capacity
        claim against the sheriff failed as a matter of law too. And the mag-
        istrate judge found that Sheriff Hill, in his official capacity, was en-
        titled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court
        because he acted as an arm of the state when making personnel
        decisions.
                The magistrate judge alternatively found that Thomas had
        failed to state a claim under the Act because she had alleged insuf-
        ficient facts showing that her change in shift was an adverse em-
        ployment action or supporting a causal connection between her
        discrimination complaints and her firing. Finally, the magistrate
        judge concluded that Thomas’s claims should be dismissed with
        prejudice because amendment would be futile. The magistrate
        judge again advised Thomas of her right to file objections, the
        deadline, and the consequences for failing to do so.
               Thomas filed the following objections: (1) the magistrate
        judge (in both this report and recommendation and the previous,
        non-final one) “paint[ed] the plaintiff as not being truthful” and
        misapplied the motion to dismiss standard by not taking her allega-
        tions as “totally true”; (2) her W2s (which were neither attached to
        nor referenced in her complaint) demonstrated that the board was
USCA11 Case: 22-10762     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023    Page: 7 of 14

        22-10762               Opinion of the Court                       7

        her employer; (3) the magistrate judge erred in concluding that nei-
        ther the board nor the sheriff was her employer; (4) because federal
        courts are bound by state law, she should be permitted to amend
        under Georgia’s notice pleading rules, and the magistrate judge’s
        recommendation otherwise displayed bias and prejudice against
        Thomas; and (5) her case should be stayed pending resolution of
        criminal proceedings against Sheriff Hill.
               The district court adopted the final report and recommen-
        dation, overruled Thomas’s objections, and dismissed her com-
        plaint. In doing so, the district court pointed out that Thomas
        could not retroactively object to the magistrate judge’s original,
        non-final report and recommendation. The district court also
        noted that we have consistently held that Georgia counties lack au-
        thority over sheriffs’ offices and personnel—so Thomas’s W2s
        were insufficient to show the board was her employer. The district
        court clarified that the magistrate judge never found that Sheriff
        Hill wasn’t Thomas’s employer—only that he wasn’t an “em-
        ployer” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in his
        individual capacity and was immune from suit in his official capac-
        ity. And the district court concluded that amendment would be
        futile where neither defendant was subject to liability in federal
        court for Thomas’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims.
        Finally, the district court declined to stay Thomas’s case pending
        resolution of unrelated criminal charges against Sheriff Hill.
              This is Thomas’s appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-10762       Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023      Page: 8 of 14

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10762

                             STANDARD OF REVIEW

               Ordinarily, we review de novo a district court’s order dis-
        missing claims sua sponte under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure
        to state a claim. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159–60 (11th Cir.
        2003). The same is true for a district court’s order granting a mo-
        tion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338,
        1351 (11th Cir. 2022).
               But a party who “fail[s] to object to a magistrate judge’s find-
        ings or recommendations contained in a report”—and who “was
        informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
        appeal for failing to object”—forfeits the right to challenge a district
        court order “based on [the] unobjected-to factual and legal conclu-
        sions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1; Roy, 53 F.4th at 1352 (applying rule 3-1 to
        pro se plaintiff); Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th
        Cir. 2017) (same), abrogated on other grounds by Bostock v. Clay-
        ton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). We may, however, review a for-
        feited objection for plain error “if necessary in the interests of jus-
        tice.” R. 3-1. “Under the civil plain error standard, we will consider
        an issue not raised in the district court if it involves a pure question
        of law, and if refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of
        justice.” Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1352 (11th Cir.
        2017) (cleaned up).
               “To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is based
        on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us
        that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10762         Document: 22-1         Date Filed: 02/03/2023         Page: 9 of 14

        22-10762                   Opinion of the Court                                9

        Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir.
        2014). So, “[w]hen an appellant fails to challenge properly on ap-
        peal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judg-
        ment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that
        ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id.;
        see also United States v. Maher, 955 F.3d 880, 885 (11th Cir. 2020)
        (applying principle to pro se litigant).
                                       DISCUSSION

               Reading Thomas’s initial brief liberally, Timson v. Sampson,
        518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted), we discern five
        arguments.2 We first address two arguments she forfeited by fail-
        ing to object to the magistrate judge’s reports. We then address
        Thomas’s other three arguments, which she preserved by object-
        ing to the magistrate judge’s final report and recommendation.
                         A.       Thomas’s forfeited arguments
               First, Thomas challenges the magistrate judge’s section 1915
        review of her complaint for frivolity or failure to state a claim. She
        argues the district court abused its discretion when it let the mag-
        istrate judge “act as co-counsel” for the defendants by initiating

        2
           We decline to address the issues—Sheriff Hill’s Eleventh Amendment im-
        munity in his official capacity, the merits of Thomas’s section 1983 claim, and
        the district court’s decision not to stay the case pending resolution of criminal
        proceedings against Sheriff Hill—Thomas addressed only in her reply brief.
        See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874 (“[W]e do not address arguments raised for the
        first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.”) (citation omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 22-10762        Document: 22-1         Date Filed: 02/03/2023         Page: 10 of 14

        10                         Opinion of the Court                       22-10762

        scrutiny of Thomas’s complaint and recommending dismissal of
        most of her claims. Thomas argues this was especially improper—
        violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), 28 U.S.C. section
        636(b)(1)(B), and her equal protection and due process rights—be-
        cause the magistrate judge did so without any factfinding, contra-
        dictory evidence from the defendants, or a motion to dismiss. 3 Sec-
        ond, and similarly, Thomas argues the district court erred in adopt-
        ing the magistrate judge’s final report, which recommended dis-
        missal of Thomas’s complaint even though the defendants filed no
        evidence to support their motion to dismiss and the magistrate
        judge didn’t hold a factfinding hearing—in violation of rule 72(b)
        and Thomas’s equal protection and due process rights.
               Unfortunately for Thomas, she raised neither of these argu-
        ments below and so has forfeited anything but plain error review.
        See R. 3-1. And although she makes no argument on appeal that
        plain error review is necessary in the interests of justice, we note
        that the district court did not err—let alone in a way that resulted
        in a miscarriage of justice. See Burch, 861 F.3d at 1352. With re-
        spect to the section 1915 review, the district court (and magistrate
        judge) did exactly what the statute authorizes: screen Thomas’s in
        forma pauperis complaint and then dismiss the claims it

        3
          Thomas also says the magistrate judge’s non-final report and recommenda-
        tion called for dismissal of her claims “without permitting [her] to object.” But
        the magistrate judge’s report was served on Thomas with a notice of her right
        to file objections within fourteen days.
USCA11 Case: 22-10762      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 02/03/2023     Page: 11 of 14

        22-10762               Opinion of the Court                        11

        determined Thomas had failed to adequately plead. See
        § 1915(e)(2)(B); Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2001)
        (noting dismissal under section 1915 “is now mandatory” once dis-
        trict court determines complaint fails to state a claim).
               And Thomas’s evidentiary arguments misunderstand the
        procedures applicable at the pleading (as opposed to summary
        judgment) stage. District courts generally aren’t permitted to con-
        sider materials beyond the complaint when ruling on a rule 12(b)(6)
        motion to dismiss, see, e.g., Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1275
        (11th Cir. 2005)—and “[w]e apply the standards of [r]ule 12(b)(6) in
        reviewing dismissals under [section] 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),” Henley v.
        Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
        Nothing in rule 72(b) or section 636 requires otherwise; the former
        merely requires that any evidentiary proceeding a magistrate judge
        holds be on the record, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and the latter
        grants the district court discretion to refer motions, see
        § 636(b)(1)(B). We thus conclude that the magistrate judge’s fail-
        ure to require or receive evidence did not violate rule 72(b), section
        636, or Thomas’s constitutional rights.
                      B.     Thomas’s preserved arguments
               Turning to the arguments Thomas preserved for appeal,
        Thomas argues, third, that the magistrate judge—who was “com-
        pletely biased from the very beginning”—erred by “refus[ing] to
        treat” Thomas’s allegations as true as required by Bell Atlantic
        Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
        U.S. 662 (2009). Thomas says the magistrate judge failed to give
USCA11 Case: 22-10762        Document: 22-1        Date Filed: 02/03/2023        Page: 12 of 14

        12                        Opinion of the Court                     22-10762

        credence to her allegations or the documents attached to her com-
        plaint, thus violating her equal protection rights.
                Thomas doesn’t specify which facts or attachments the mag-
        istrate judge failed to take as true. But the district court was only
        required to treat well-pleaded facts as true—not Thomas’s “naked
        assertions” or legal conclusions. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555;
        Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. The final report and recommendation
        did just that, taking as true Thomas’s core allegations that (1) de-
        spite her seniority, Thomas was reassigned to the night shift at the
        behest of Sheriff Hill rather than being allowed to bid for her pre-
        ferred shift like younger, less senior clerks; and (2) when Thomas
        complained about this differential treatment, first to the board and
        then to the EEOC, she was harassed and then ultimately fired and
        banned from county buildings. We therefore find no support for
        Thomas’s contention that the magistrate judge “refused to treat”
        Thomas’s asserted facts as true.
              Fourth, Thomas argues the district court erred in adopting
        the magistrate judge’s “false narrative” that the board wasn’t
        Thomas’s employer—when her W2s “clearly state[]” the oppo-
        site—and that Sheriff Hill couldn’t be sued in his individual capac-
        ity. 4 But the district court approved and adopted the magistrate

        4
           Thomas also says the district court erred “by agreeing with the magistrate
        judge[] . . . that Clayton County was not capable of being sued.” But the mag-
        istrate judge expressly declined to reach the defendants’ argument that the
        board wasn’t an entity capable of being sued. And Thomas argues the district
        court erred by finding that she “was not employed by any of the defendants.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10762        Document: 22-1         Date Filed: 02/03/2023        Page: 13 of 14

        22-10762                   Opinion of the Court                              13

        judge’s final report and recommendation in full—meaning that, in
        addition to those reasons for dismissing Thomas’s claims, the dis-
        trict court also adopted the alternative conclusion that Thomas
        failed to state claims for either discrimination (because she didn’t
        adequately plead an adverse employment action) or retaliation (be-
        cause she didn’t plead facts showing causation). Thomas doesn’t
        argue that the district court erred in dismissing her claims on these
        alternative grounds. Because Thomas doesn’t challenge each of
        the multiple, independent grounds upon which the district court
        based its judgment, the district court’s order is due to be affirmed.
        See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680; Maher, 955 F.3d at 885.
                Finally, Thomas says, in passing, that her complaint satisfied
        notice pleading. As best we can tell, Thomas is hearkening back to
        an argument she made in her objection to the magistrate judge’s
        final report and recommendation: the district court shouldn’t deny
        leave to amend because her complaint satisfied Georgia’s notice
        pleading requirements. But federal courts are governed by fed-
        eral—not state—procedural law. See, e.g., Gasperini v. Ctr. for
        Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996). And federal law requires
        not just notice pleading but that Thomas allege “enough facts to
        state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Holland v.

        But that’s not what either the magistrate judge or the district court concluded;
        both found the board wasn’t Thomas’s employer but concluded that Sheriff
        Hill wasn’t liable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for other
        reasons (namely, that the Act doesn’t permit individual-capacity claims and
        that he was immune from suit in federal court in his official capacity).
USCA11 Case: 22-10762    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 02/03/2023   Page: 14 of 14

        14                    Opinion of the Court               22-10762

        Carnival Corp., 50 F.4th 1088, 1093 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bell
        Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The district
        court didn’t err by not granting leave to amend based on Georgia’s
        notice pleading standard.
              AFFIRMED.