BELLAMY

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIMBERLY BELLAMY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:26cv23-MW-MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and with in forma pauperis status, has

filed an amended civil rights complaint. ECF No. 6, asserting claims under

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act. Notably, Plaintiff was previously advised that she must

allege specific facts in the amended complaint which show how the

Defendant violated those Acts. ECF No. 5. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s

amended complaint, the Court concludes that she has not done so.

In general, Plaintiff contends that she has been subjected to

“deliberate delays, denial of services, and retaliation by Defendant.” ECF

Page 2 of 6

No. 6 at 2. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with PTSD and claims that she is

“a qualified individual with a disability under” both the “ADA and § 504.” Id.

at 2. However, the factual allegations do not support her claims that

Defendant “failed to provide meaningful access” to vocational rehabilitation

services.

Title II prohibits disability discrimination in public services furnished

by governmental entities. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165. Plaintiff has not

clearly alleged that “that, because of her disability, she lacks ‘meaningful

access’ to a public benefit to which she is entitled.” Todd v. Carstarphen,

236 F. Supp. 3d 1311, 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2017) (citing Alexander v. Choate,

469 U.S. 287, 301, 105 S. Ct. 712, 83 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1985)). “Difficulty in

accessing a benefit, however, does not by itself establish a lack of

meaningful access.” Todd, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 1329. As presented,

Plaintiff alleges only that she encountered difficulties and disruptions in

receiving vocational rehabilitation services. Plaintiff did not allege facts

which show that she “was either excluded from participation in or denied

the benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or activities,” or that

“the exclusion, denial of benefit, or discrimination was by reason of the ...

disability.” Parnes v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 751 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1290

Case No. 4:26cv23-MW-MAF

Page 3 of 6

(M.D. Fla. 2024) (quoting Christmas v. Nabors, 76 F.4th 1320, 1333 (11th

Cir. 2023)).

For example, Plaintiff complained that she has had three different

vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors assigned to her. ECF No. 6 at 3.

Each reassignment allegedly caused “delays in services, disrupted ongoing

communication, and required Plaintiff to repeatedly explain her goals and

needs.” Id. There are no allegations which reveal either that Plaintiff was

denied the benefit of counseling, or that she was treated differently

because of her disability. That is especially true in light of Plaintiff’s

acknowledgment that it was her own “repeated need to request

reassignment” which added to the delay. Id. at 4. Furthermore, Plaintiff

said that she “repeatedly had to escalate routine issues to supervisors and

upper-level management in order for assigned counselors to fulfill their

basic responsibilities.” Id. Those assertions do not support a finding of

discrimination in the provision of services and benefits.

Plaintiff also complained that she “was assigned multiple VR venders,

many of whom repeatedly failed to provide promised services.” Id. at 5.

She said that she “made repeated reports to her counselors regarding

vender inaction, misleading guidance, or unethical instructions,” yet she

Case No. 4:26cv23-MW-MAF

Page 4 of 6

continued to experience “delays and failures.” ECF No. 6 at 5. She

contends that job placement services were delayed for approximately a

year-and-a-half, and although she had “multiple VR vendors for job

placement assistance,” none of them “resulted in meaningful services or

employment outcomes due to vender failures, inadequate oversight, and

counselor mismanagement.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff also complained about

placement into a music program which was not age appropriate. Id. at 11.

The allegations reveal Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the information

provided by multiple vendors, results obtained, and program oversight

failures, see pages 6-11, but the facts alleged fail to show discrimination.

Rather, Plaintiff’s amended complaint paints a picture of “systemic

dysfunction within the agency,” id. at 4, but Plaintiff has not shown that she

suffered discrimination by the Defendant or was denied access to a benefit

or service because of her disability.

Plaintiff also contends that at some point, she “filed a complaint with

the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regarding denial of services and

retaliation.” ECF No. 6 at 9. She then experienced “[r]epeated delays and

denials” after engaging “in protected activity, including filing the OCR

complaint, reporting issues to the VR Ombudsman, requesting counselor

Case No. 4:26cv23-MW-MAF

Page 5 of 6

reassignment, and communicating concerns regarding vendor performance

and IPE updates.” Id. at 10.

The ADA “prohibits retaliation against an individual who has ‘opposed

any act or practice made unlawful by’ the Act's anti-discrimination

provisions.” Shotz v. City of Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir.

2003). However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts which support her claim of

retaliation. First, Plaintiff has not alleged that her counselors, vendors, or

supervisors of her counselors were aware of her complaint or other

protected First Amendment activity. Second, Plaintiff made only a

conclusory assertion that “actions were . . . taken in retaliation against

Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities,” id. at 12, but she did not

present facts which demonstrate she suffered an adverse action because

she filed a complaint, communicated her concerns, or requested

reassignments. Those conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a

claim. Because Plaintiff has already been provided an opportunity to

amend her complaint, it is now recommended that this case be dismissed.

Case No. 4:26cv23-MW-MAF

Page 6 of 6

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 6, be DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 26, 2026.

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). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other

parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections within

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 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. 4:26cv23-MW-MAF