United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
S. CAYER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants'
“Motion[s] to Dismiss…” (documents #4 and
6), pro se Plaintiff's “Motion to
Amend” (document #10), and the parties' briefs and
Motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
fully considered the arguments, the record, and the
applicable authority, the undersigned will grant
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend as to Defendant Hendrick and
respectfully recommend that Defendant Wilsman's Motion to
Dismiss be granted, as discussed below.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action in Mecklenburg
County Superior Court alleging disability discrimination in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101 et seq… The Complaint named
Plaintiff's employer and its humans resources manager as
Defendants. Defendants timely removed this matter to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina based upon federal question jurisdiction.
6, 2019, Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss.
29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Two: Clarification
of Complaint” (document #10) which was docketed as a
Motion to Amend. In his Motion, Plaintiff stated that he has
undergone “extensive medical treatment for insomnia
… which plagued me at that time and
parties' Motions are ripe for disposition.
reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the court should
accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view
the complaint in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7
F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The plaintiff's
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
“[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the
allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 563. A
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will
survive if it contains enough facts to “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step
process for determining whether a complaint meets this
plausibility standard. First, the court identifies
allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions,
are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id.
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555) (allegation that government officials adopted
challenged policy “because of” its adverse
effects on protected group was conclusory and not assumed to
be true). Although the pleading requirements stated in
“Rule 8 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]
mark a notable and generous departure from the
hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era ... it
does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed
with nothing more than conclusions.” Id. at
to the extent there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the
court should assume their truth and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Id. at 679. “Determining whether a complaint
contains sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for
relief “will ... be a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id…
“Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court
to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged-but it has not
‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to
relief, '” and therefore should be dismissed.
Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
sufficiency of the factual allegations aside, “Rule
12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis
of a dispositive issue of law.” Sons of Confederate
Veterans v. City of Lexington, 722 F.3d 224, 228 (4th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327 (1989)). Indeed, where “it is clear that no
relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be
proved consistent with the allegations, a claim must be
dismissed.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at
328; see also Stratton v. Mecklenburg Cnty. Dept. of Soc.
Servs., 521 Fed.Appx. 278, 293 (4th Cir. 2013)). The