Howard v. Salisbury University et al

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 6/1/2017. (c/m 6/1/17 bas, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * REDMOND HOWARD, * Plaintiff * v. * SALISBURY UNIVERSITY et al.., Defendants * * CIVIL NO. JKB-17-260 * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM 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 should contain. (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: ____________/s/______________________ James K. Bredar United States District Judge 2

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?