Donald George v. Groome Transportation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 24-14131
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-14131 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14131 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DONALD GEORGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

GROOME TRANSPORTATION, GROOME TRANSPORTATION OF ALABAMA LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-00149-MHH ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The district court dismissed Donald George’s pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. On appeal, George argues that USCA11 Case: 24-14131 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-14131

the district court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant’s removal was improper. We disagree, and affirm. George’s complaint invoked several provisions of federal law—42 U.S.C. § 2000e (also known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Due Process Clause—any of which provides a basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC, 121 F.4th 149, 155– 56 (11th Cir. 2024). To remove to federal court, a defendant must act within thirty days of being served with the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, the complaint was served on January 9, and the defendant satisfied that requirement by filing for removal on February 8. George argues that the clock should have started on December 15 when he filed the complaint. That is incorrect; the removal statute itself states that the thirty-day window starts when the complaint is served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Removal was timely. George’s remaining arguments are frivolous. We find the district court had jurisdiction and AFFIRM.