CARTER v. MCKENZIE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
WILLIAM CARTER, JR,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 4:25cv95-MCR-MAF
SGT. MCKENZIE,
Defendant.
_______________________/
ORDER
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on June
6, 2025. See ECF No. 17. The Court furnished the Plaintiff a copy and afforded an
opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section
636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections. ECF
No. 23. 	Having considered the R&R and Plaintiff’s timely filed objections, the
Court adopts the recommendation in part and rejects it in part.
The operative complaint, ECF No. 5, asserts a civil rights violation against
Sgt. McKenzie in the officer’s individual capacity, alleging the failure to protect
Plaintiff from an attack by other inmates. 	See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff seeks
leave to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint to add claims against the Department
of Corrections (“DOC”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the
Rehabilitation Act and an Eighth Amendment claim against Centurion. 	The
proposed amendment also seeks to add McKenzie’s official capacity.
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 40 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Magistrate Judge concluded that an official capacity claim against
McKenzie is barred because it is nothing more than a claim against the DOC itself;
that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are futile because the allegations are
conclusory and show merely an attempt to “backdoor and Eighth Amendment
medical claim against DOC under the guise” of these disability discrimination
statutes; and that the Eighth Amendment claim against Centurion is conclusory and
fails to state a claim. Therefore, the R&R recommends denying the motion for leave
to amend as futile. The Court disagrees in part.
Plaintiff argues that he is not bringing a medical malpractice claim as
suggested by the Magistrate Judge but instead asserts the denial of services by reason
of his disability, adding that he has received a cane “but is still placed in a top bunk”
and lacks mobility and meaningful access to his work assignments, prison yard, and
medical services because of his disability. 	ECF No. 23 at 3–4. 	When construed
liberally, the Court cannot conclude that this amendment would be futile. 	See
generally, Kinard v. Fla. Dep’ of Corr., No. 24-10359, 2024 WL 4785003, at *6
(11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2024) (liberally construing allegations that due to an inmate’s
injured foot and the lack of any accommodation, the prisoner was unable “to
participate in recreational activities in the prison yard” as plausibly alleging an ADA
and Rehabilitation Act claim). Plaintiff should be allowed an opportunity to amend
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 40 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
his pleading to add ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the DOC for the
alleged denial of participation in services and a meaningful accommodation.
In all other respects, the Court adopts the R&R.
Accordingly:
1. 	The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, is
adopted in part and rejected in part, consistent with this Order.
2. 	The motion to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
that reasserts the § 1983 individual capacity claim stated in ECF No. 5 against Sgt.
McKenzie and adds a claim against the DOC for the denial of services/denial of
accommodation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. In all other respects, leave
to amend is DENIED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s amended complaint, consistent with this Order, must be filed
on or before January 26, 2026.
4. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case to the Magistrate
Judge for further proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January 2026.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00095-MCR-MAF Document 40 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3