Temesgen Abdissa v. Merck Corporate
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00393-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767055]. Mailed to: T. Abdissa. [15-2186]
Appeal: 15-2186
Doc: 5
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2186
TEMESGEN TESHOME ABDISSA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MERCK CORPORATE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:15-cv-00393-BO)
Submitted:
February 29, 2016
Decided:
March 3, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Temesgen Teshome Abdissa, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2186
Doc: 5
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Temesgen Teshome Abdissa appeals the district court’s order
granting his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and summarily
dismissing
his
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
complaint
as
(2012).
frivolous
Abdissa
pursuant
alleged
to
that
28
U.S.C.
Merck
Corp.
discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 &
Supp.
2015).
For
the
reasons
that
follow,
we
vacate
the
district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
A
pro
construed.
1978).
dismiss
se
litigant’s
Gordon
v.
pleadings
Leeke,
574
are
F.2d
to
1147,
be
1151
liberally
(4th
Cir.
Once construed liberally, however, a federal court must
an
in
forma
pauperis
case
at
any
time
the
court
determines that “the action . . . is frivolous or malicious[,]
. . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[,]
or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from
such
dismissals
discretion.
relief.”
of
a
28
U.S.C.
complaint
as
§
1915(e)(2)(B).
frivolous
for
an
We
review
abuse
of
Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 256–57 (4th Cir.
2004).
It does not appear beyond doubt that Abdissa’s complaint
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McLean v. United States, 566
F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of frivolous claims
2
Appeal: 15-2186
include
Doc: 5
Filed: 03/03/2016
those
whose
Pg: 3 of 3
factual
allegations
are
so
nutty,
delusional, or wholly fanciful as to be simply unbelievable.”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Indeed, even
at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) stage, a complaint may proceed
“even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the
alleged] facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote
and unlikely.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
(2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because the district
court
giving
dismissed
the
complaint
without
Abdissa
an
opportunity to clarify his claims, see Coleman v. Peyton, 340
F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (holding that, if pro
se
complaint
contains
potentially
cognizable
claim,
plaintiff
should be given opportunity to particularize allegations), we
vacate the district court’s order dismissing Abdissa’s complaint
as frivolous and remand to permit Abdissa to amend his complaint
and for further proceedings.
We express no opinion as to the
viability of Abdissa’s underlying claims.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?