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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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