McCaskill v. 13th Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TEKEELA A. McCASKILL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	CIV. ACT. NO. 1:22-cv-250-TFM-N
)
OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK
FOR THE 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which
recommends the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 96) be granted, denial of the
motion to strike (Doc. 105) as moot, and denial of Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment
(Docs. 101, 106). See Doc. 124. Subsequent to the issuance of the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff filed several documents including a motion to amend (Doc. 130), a motion for ex parte
hearing (Doc. 131), a motion to compel (Doc. 133), a further objection to the Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 127), several extension requests (Docs. 128, 135, 138), and two sets
of objections (Docs. 129, 136).
In her “notice” (Doc. 127) filed on July 22, 2025, Plaintiff objects to the Defendant’s entire
motion for summary judgment and says she will file all her objections by Friday (which the Court
notes would be July 25, 2025). Then on July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed some objections (Doc. 129)
accompanied by a motion for extension of time to respond to the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 128) in which she requested 30 additional days to respond. The Cout granted an extension
until August 11, 2025, but denied the extension for 30 additional days. See Doc. 132. Then on
July 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel against a court reporter for a hearing on January
Case 1:22-cv-00250-TFM-N Doc# 140 Filed 08/27/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
11, 2024 presumably from another court. See Doc. 133. The court reporter filed a response on
August 8, 2025 stating that she had not received notice of any subpoena or other request. See Doc.
134. 	On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed another extension request while filing additional
objections. See Docs. 135, 136. In her extension request, she sought more time until “Monday,
August 23rd, 2024” which the Court denied and noted that she had been submitting various matters
on a rolling basis since July 24, 2025 and had sufficient time to address the Report and
Recommendation. See Docs. 135, 137. Finally on August 18, 2025, Plaintiff submitted yet another
three-week extension though it was unclear whether it sought more time for objections to the
Report and Recommendation or to supplement her prior response in opposition to the summary
judgment motion. See Doc. 138. The Court again denied the additional extension request noting
that the time for discovery and supplemental briefing on motions had come and gone. See Doc.
139. The Court considers the matter ripe for review and turns now to the substance of the Report
and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and her related motions.
First, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Defendant failed to adequately
explain its change in position regarding the proper name and entity for the suit. See Doc. 124 at
16-18. Defendant did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Considerable
time and effort has been spent by the Court on this issue in prior orders and review. Id. Given the
deficiencies and the constant shifting position of the Defendant, the Court determines that it is
appropriate to sua sponte raise the question of whether Defendant and/or its counsel should be
sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The Court will set a briefing schedule on that matter
in the conclusion of this opinion as the Court retains the jurisdiction to handle even after a
resolution of a case. See, e.g., Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 138 (1992) (concluding that
a district court could impose Rule 11 sanctions even where it was later determined that the court
Case 1:22-cv-00250-TFM-N Doc# 140 Filed 08/27/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying case because an “imposition of a Rule 11
sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action. Rather, it requires the determination of a
collateral issue: whether the attorney has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction
would be appropriate.”) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395-96 (1990));
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F.3d 1258, 1266 (11th Cir. 2021)
(“Reading Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), Cooter & Gell, and our case law together, it is
clear that even when a voluntary dismissal disposes of an entire action, district courts retain
jurisdiction to consider at least five different types of collateral issues: costs, fees, contempt
sanctions, Rule 11 sanctions, and motions to confirm arbitral awards.”). While this is a serious
question for the Defendant and its counsel, it does not have an impact on the ultimate conclusion
of the case or the Report and Recommendation’s analysis. Therefore, the Court proceeds now to
the remainder of the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s submissions.
Plaintiff submits two sets of objections. The first came in on July 24, 2025 (see Doc. 129)
and the second came in on August 11, 2025 (see Doc. 136). In reviewing those objections, Plaintiff
does little to address the substance of the legal analysis of the Magistrate Judge. 	The Court
understands that Plaintiff feels the employment actions were wrong and disagrees with them. But,
as pointedly discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff must show that those actions were racially
motivated and/or retaliation for Plaintiff having taken protected actions. Plaintiff does neither –
either 	when 	opposing 	the 	summary 	judgment 	or 	when 	objecting 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Rather, Plaintiff focuses on her opinion that the employment actions were
wrong and that her supervisors were liars. 	That does not establish a claim under Title VII. 	As
noted in the Report and Recommendation, this Court does not have jurisdiction over general
employment disputes but only matters that are unlawful under Title VII. 	As such, Plaintiff’s
Case 1:22-cv-00250-TFM-N Doc# 140 Filed 08/27/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
objections are overruled.
The Court finally turns to Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her complaint for a fourth
time and to supplement her motion for summary judgment because she would correct all
deficiencies. 	However, the Court determines that Plaintiff was given three prior occasions to
amend her complaint and had sufficient opportunity during the discovery process and the summary
judgment briefing to adequately address all the matters raised here. 	Therefore, the motion for
leave to amend complaint (Doc. 130) is DENIED. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request for
a hearing or ex parte hearing (Doc. 131). The Court finds that a hearing is not necessary to resolve
these matters and Plaintiff’s assertion that people are afraid to testify is not a matter for the Court
to resolve at this late stage. This case has been pending over 3 years and had multiple adjustments
to the scheduling order. Discovery closed on August 26, 2024 and dispositive motions were fully
briefed by October 28, 2024.
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues
raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 96) is GRANTED, the Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 101,
106) are DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 105) is DENIED as moot. In addition,
the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 130), Request
for a Hearing or Ex Parte (Doc. 131), and Motion to Compel (Doc. 133).
Defendant shall file a brief addressing its change in position about the appropriate party
despite the issue having been previously resolved without objection. Specifically, Defendant and
counsel should address why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Case 1:22-cv-00250-TFM-N Doc# 140 Filed 08/27/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
11, the Court’s inherent authority, S.D. Ala. GenLR 83.3(i), and/or Alabama Rule of Professional
Conduct 3.3 for making false statements of fact or law to the Court. This brief shall be due on or
before September 12, 2025.
Final Judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2025.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00250-TFM-N Doc# 140 Filed 08/27/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>