USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11446
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
RUFUS HAMILTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FULTON COUNTY SCHOOLS,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-01437-LMM
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 2 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11446
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rufus Hamilton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his amended complaint against his former em-
ployer, the Fulton County Schools (“FCS”). Hamilton purported
to assert claims against FCS for unlawful discrimination based on
his race and age, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (“Title VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Em-
ployment Act,
29 U.S.C. § 623(a) (“ADEA”). No reversible error has
been shown; we affirm.
I.
Hamilton filed pro se this civil action in April 2021. Hamilton
filed his initial complaint against FCS using the district court’s “Pro
Se Employment Discrimination Complaint Form.” On the com-
plaint form, Hamilton checked boxes indicating (1) that he was
bringing claims for violations of Title VII and the ADEA; (2) the
alleged discrimination took place on 16 December 2020; and (3)
that his lawsuit involved a failure-to-promote and the termination
of his employment. Hamilton checked a box indicating that he be-
lieved he was discriminated against because of his race and identi-
fied himself as being black. Hamilton left un-checked the box indi-
cating that he believed he was discriminated against based on his
age. Nor did Hamilton provide his date of birth or his age on the
date of the complained-of conduct in December 2020.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 3 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 3
In the section of the form directing plaintiffs to describe the
essential facts of their case, Hamilton alleged that he was fired “for
taking home pallets” even though his director purportedly gave
him permission to do so. Hamilton alleged further that “every
body was taking trees home as firewood and they still have a job.”
Hamilton did not identify the race or age of the employees who
purportedly took home firewood. Hamilton attached to his com-
plaint a notice of right-to-sue letter received from the EEOC: a let-
ter that referenced only a charge of discrimination alleging viola-
tions of Title VII.
FCS moved to dismiss Hamilton’s complaint for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim.
On 13 May 2021, Hamilton filed pro se a one-page document
titled “Amend Complaint.” Hamilton sought to add a claim for
wrongful termination. Hamilton also alleged that he applied for a
position but that “they” hired “their friend” instead. Hamilton al-
leged that -- although he was not selected for the position -- he was
expected to do the work that the newly-hired person did not want
to do.
On the same day, Hamilton also filed pro se a one-page doc-
ument titled “Motion to Not Dismiss.” In that document, Hamil-
ton said again that he was terminated unlawfully for taking pallets
even though he had permission to do so and stopped when he was
asked. Hamilton also said again that “they wanted [him] to do the
work the new guy didn’t want to do.” Hamilton attached a photo-
graph of wood pallets and several letters from FCS’s Supervisor of
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 4 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11446
Maintenance discussing Hamilton’s job-performance issues during
October and November 2020.
FCS again moved to dismiss Hamilton’s amended complaint
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to
state a claim.
On 4 June 2021, Hamilton filed pro se a one-page document
titled “Add to file.” Hamilton said that FCS “clearly falls under Title
VII.” About his failure-to-promote claim, Hamilton alleged that he
applied for a position but that Dennis Downs gave the position to
“his friend” instead. Because the newly-hired person did not want
to do the job, Hamilton said he was pressured “to do his job with
the same pay.” Hamilton alleges that “[t]hey came up with this tak-
ing from the trash pallet when everybody else taking property
home as firewood. Trees!!” (emphasis in original). Hamilton then
attached two photographs showing piles of cut wood.
A magistrate judge issued a non-final report and recommen-
dation (“R&R”). Construing all of Hamilton’s pro se filings to-
gether as a single complaint, the magistrate judge determined that
Hamilton had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief. The magistrate judge also determined that -- be-
cause Hamilton had not provided a copy of his EEOC charge --
Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted properly
his administrative remedies. Given Hamilton’s pro se status, the
magistrate judge recommended that Hamilton be given an oppor-
tunity to amend his complaint to correct the identified deficiencies.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 5 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 5
Hamilton filed no objections to the R&R. The district court
adopted the R&R and granted Hamilton leave to file one more
amended complaint.
On 14 September 2021, Hamilton filed an amended com-
plaint consisting of one page of narrative text. Hamilton asserted
that he applied for a “lead position” he says he was well-qualified
for, but that he was passed over in favor of a friend of his immedi-
ate supervisor, Dennis Downs. Because the new hire purportedly
did not want to complete some of his assigned duties, Hamilton
was expected -- but refused -- to perform those tasks without an
accompanying pay raise.
Hamilton also alleged that he was fired for theft after he re-
moved pallets from outside the trash can, even though his director
had given him permission to do so. Hamilton said he believed tak-
ing the pallets would not cause “a problem because several mainte-
nance workers were taking cut trees home for firewood.” Hamil-
ton said he knows the reason he was terminated was not because
of the pallets but, instead, because he complained about not getting
the promotion. Hamilton also said, “I did not include race in this
letter because then [I] would be labeled as a racist.” Never did
Hamilton mention his race or age, nor the race or age of any of his
co-workers or supervisors. Nor did Hamilton attach a copy of his
EEOC charge to his amended complaint.
FCS again moved to dismiss Hamilton’s amended com-
plaint.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 6 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11446
A magistrate judge issued a final R&R recommending that
the district court grant FCS’s motion and dismiss Hamilton’s
amended complaint. The magistrate judge determined that -- de-
spite the district court’s detailed instructions -- Hamilton’s
amended complaint still failed to allege factual content sufficient to
state a plausible claim for unlawful discrimination. In the alterna-
tive, the magistrate judge determined that Hamilton’s claims were
subject to dismissal because Hamilton had failed to demonstrate
that he had exhausted properly his administrative remedies.
Hamilton objected to the R&R. 1 The district court over-
ruled Hamilton’s objections, adopted the R&R, and dismissed the
case.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim, accepting all properly alleged facts as true and con-
struing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Butler
v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cty.,
685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012).
1 In his objections, Hamilton alleged -- for the first time -- that he was treated
differently from a white employee whom Hamilton said is still employed after
taking home cut-up trees to use as firewood. In reviewing the R&R, the dis-
trict court declined to consider this new factual allegation, noting that Hamil-
ton omitted this fact from his amended complaint and from his response to
FSC’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, Hamilton raises no challenge to the dis-
trict court’s refusal to consider facts raised for the first time in his objections
to the R&R.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 7 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 7
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must con-
tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotations omitted). To state a plausible claim for relief, a
plaintiff must go beyond pleading merely the “sheer possibility” of
unlawful activity by a defendant and must offer “factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the de-
fendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. In other words,
the plaintiff’s “[f ]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclu-
sions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.’” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. “Nor does a complaint suffice
if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhance-
ment.”
Id. (quotations and alteration omitted).
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is construed more liber-
ally than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Powell v. Lennon,
914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). Despite this leniency toward
pro se litigants, courts may not step into the role of de facto counsel
or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action.” GJR Invs. v. Cty. of Escambia,
132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998).
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or
otherwise discriminate against any person “with respect to his
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 8 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11446
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” be-
cause of the person’s race. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The
ADEA, meanwhile, prohibits employers from discriminating
against an employee who is at least 40 years old because of the em-
ployee’s age. See
29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), 631(a).
The district court committed no error in dismissing Hamil-
ton’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court ap-
plied properly the federal pleading standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8, and in Iqbal and Twombly.
Accepting the allegations in Hamilton’s amended complaint
as true and liberally construing them in Hamilton’s favor, Hamilton
failed to allege facts demonstrating plausibly that he was discrimi-
nated against unlawfully in violation of Title VII or the ADEA.
About his ADEA claims, Hamilton alleged no facts from
which we can infer reasonably that he was discriminated against
unlawfully based on his age. Nowhere in Hamilton’s amended
complaint did Hamilton allege that he was at least 40 years’ old at
the time of the complained-of employment acts. Hamilton has
thus failed to allege facts showing that he belonged to the class of
persons protected by the ADEA. See
29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Nor has
Hamilton alleged the ages of the pertinent decisionmakers, his co-
workers, or the person hired for the “lead position.” On this rec-
ord, the district court dismissed properly Hamilton’s claims under
the ADEA for failure to state a claim.
We next address Hamilton’s claims for race discrimination
under Title VII. About his failure-to-promote claim, Hamilton
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 9 of 10
22-11446 Opinion of the Court 9
alleged only that he applied for a position for which he was quali-
fied and that the position was given to a “friend” of his direct su-
pervisor. Never has Hamilton identified the race or qualifications
of the person who was hired for the position or identified the race
of the person who made the hiring decision. In other words, Ham-
ilton alleged no specific facts from which we can infer reasonably
that the hiring decision was motivated by unlawful race discrimi-
nation. That the hiring decision might have been made based on
personal friendships does not support -- and seems to cut against -
- a plausible inference that the decision was driven by a racially dis-
criminatory animus.
About the termination of his employment, Hamilton said
he was fired for taking home pallets even though he was given per-
mission to do so. According to Hamilton, the real reason he was
fired was because he complained about not getting the promotion.
Hamilton alleged no facts about the race of the decisionmaker or
about the race, work history, or disciplinary record of those co-
workers he said were undisciplined after taking home firewood.
Nor has Hamilton alleged specific facts about his promotion-re-
lated complaints, including the identity of the person(s) to whom
he complained or whether he indicated in his complaints that he
believed the hiring decision was motivated unlawfully by race.
Without additional factual enhancement, Hamilton’s im-
plied assertions that FCS’s decision to terminate his employment
was motivated by unlawful race discrimination or was made in re-
taliation for Hamilton’s promotion-related complaints are too
USCA11 Case: 22-11446 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 Page: 10 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11446
speculative to state a plausible claim against FCS for violation of
Title VII. See Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. at 1949.
On these pleadings and for these reasons, we affirm the dis-
trict court’s dismissal of Hamilton’s amended complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2
AFFIRMED.
2 Because we conclude that the district court dismissed properly Hamilton’s
amended complaint for failure to state a claim, we need not address the district
court’s alternative ruling that Hamilton’s amended complaint was subject to
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.