Puckett et al v. Board of Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Gainesville, Inc. et al, No. 2:2013cv00131 - Document 58 (N.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER approving and adopting the 53 Report and Recommendation as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The original Complaint did not clearly state a cause of action for retaliation under the ADA. The briefing of the parties andthe Courts previous rulings made clear that an ADA retaliation claim was not included in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the good cause requirement of Rule 16 for an amendment at this time. Plaintiff's 49 Motion to Amend is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 04/15/15. (sk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Puckett et al v. Board of Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Gainesville, Inc. et al Doc. 58 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION DAVID PUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF GAINESVILLE, INC. and FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF GAINESVILLE, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-0131-RWS ORDER This case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation [53] of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Objections [56] thereto, the Court enters the following Order. In his Objections, Plaintiff asserts that a claim for retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is clearly stated in the original Complaint if one reviews the Complaint in its entirety. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s previous decisions failing to recognize the presence of the claim were in error. Further, Plaintiff argues that if the claim is not included AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Dockets.Justia.com in the original Complaint, he should be permitted to amend his Complaint in order to clearly state his ADA retaliation claim. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments and finds that each of these arguments is addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The Court receives the Report and Recommendation with approval and adopts it as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The original Complaint did not clearly state a cause of action for retaliation under the ADA. The briefing of the parties and the Court’s previous rulings made clear that an ADA retaliation claim was not included in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the good cause requirement of Rule 16 for an amendment at this time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [49] is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of April, 2015. _______________________________ RICHARD W. STORY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
