THOMAS v. ADAMS

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00098
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARCIA THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:25-cv-98-AW-MAF

BRITTNEY ADAMS, JACK CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/ ORDER OF DISMISSAL On screening Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has filed objections (ECF No. 8), and I have considered the matter de novo. I now dismiss the case. Plaintiff’s original complaint was scattered and replete with fanciful allegations. It purported to allege federal and state claims. The magistrate judge issued an order detailing some of the defects and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to replead. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is no better. As to the federal claims, Plaintiff has not stated any claim for relief. As a matter of discretion, I choose to dismiss the state-law claims, over which this court would have only supplemental jurisdiction. See Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.”). I now adopt the report and recommendation to the extent it concludes the federal claims fail to state a claim. I overrule Plaintiff’s objections.

The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s state claims are dismissed without prejudice.” The clerk will then close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 7, 2025. s/ Allen Winsor Chief United States District Judge