# BROWNING v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

> District Court, N.D. Florida · September 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153924

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Florida
- **Decided:** September 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153924

## Opinion text

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ANTONIA BROWNING,

Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25cv305-MW-MAF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/

AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 25 2025, a Report and Recommendation was entered,
ECF No. 14, recommending dismissal of this case for several reasons.

One reason was that Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se in this case, had not
filed an amended in forma pauperis motion as directed, nor has she paid
the filing fee. Approximately one week later, Plaintiff paid the filing fee.

ECF No. 16. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to recommend dismissal of
this case for that reason.
However, there remains another reason that this case should be
dismissed. Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint which
Page 2 of 3
shows that she exhausted administrative remedies and shows this case
was timely filed pursuant to Title VII. ECF No. 12. On August 19, 2025,

Plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint. ECF No. 13. The
complaint alleged that Plaintiff received her notice of right to sue letter from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] on April 16, 2025.
Id. at 9. Plaintiff attached a copy of the right to sue letter to the second

amended complaint. ECF No. 13-1 at 89. The EEOC letter was dated
April 16, 2025. Id.
Before filing suit under Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust

administrative remedies by filing a timely charge of discrimination with the
EEOC. Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2001).
A Title VII action must then be filed in court within 90 days of receipt of the
EEOC letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); Perry v. S. Wine Spirits, 511 F.

App'x 888, 889 (11th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff initiated this case on July 16,
2025, ECF No. 1, and she alleged within her complaint - sworn under
penalty of perjury - that she received the letter from the EEOC on April 16,

2025. ECF No. 13 at 9. July 16th is 91 days from Plaintiff’s receipt of the
EEOC letter on April 16th. Therefore, this case should be dismissed
because it was not timely filed within 90 days.
Case No. 4:25cv305-MW-MAF
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

because Plaintiff did not initiate this case within 90 days of her receipt of
the right to sue letter.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 2, 2025.

S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a
party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:25cv305-MW-MAF

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153924. Public record. Not legal advice.