Ronald David Jones v. Garbage Truck Operators ( 2016 )

Case: 16-13419 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13419
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-00622-RH-CAS
RONALD DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARBAGE TRUCK OPERATORS,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(October 25, 2016)
Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-13419 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Ronald David Jones appeals pro se the dismissal of his amended complaint
about the violation of his civil rights by the “Garbage Truck Operators for the City
of Quincy,” Florida. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Jones’s
complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Jones’s complaint. Jones alleged
that truck operators dumped garbage in front of his house, scratched his car,
loitered nearby at night, and sprayed poison into his house through his window air
conditioning unit, and he alleged that the truck operators retaliated against him
because of his race, his religion, and his attempt to run for President of the United
States. But Jones failed to allege any facts that would support a plausible inference
that the truck operators acted with a discriminatory animus. That is, Jones failed to
allege any facts to suggest that the truck operators were motivated to discriminate
against him based on his race, retaliated against him after he engaged in a religious
practice, or intended to deprive him of any other right under federal law. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Jones argues, for the first time, that his neighbors colluded with the
truck operators to violate his rights under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992,
Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we will not
consider arguments that Jones failed to present to the district court. See Access
Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 16-13419 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 3 of 3
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Jones’s amended complaint.
3