Howard v. Salisbury University et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 6/1/2017. (c/m 6/1/17 bas, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SALISBURY UNIVERSITY et al..,
CIVIL NO. JKB-17-260
On April 24, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion for more
definite statement and providing explicit instructions to Plaintiff on what his amended complaint
(ECF No. 44.)
For example, Plaintiff was directed to “file an amended
complaint that gathers, in one document, all of his allegations about all of the Defendants.”
(Id. 2.) The Court emphasized the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that a
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement” as to both jurisdiction and the grounds
entitling Plaintiff to relief. (Id.) Also, the order stressed that the amended complaint “must
include sufficient factual content to permit the Court to infer that Defendants have engaged in
conduct considered wrongful under constitutional, statutory, or common law” and that “[e]ach
allegation shall be simple, concise, and direct.” (Id.)
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 46) does not satisfy any of these essential
directives or any of the other instructions as to content and format of the complaint. Plaintiff
claims he is entitled to relief, but fails to support his claim(s) with “sufficient factual content”
showing he is entitled to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Accordingly, by separate order, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 51) will be
granted and this case will be dismissed.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
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?