ROY v. WALMART

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ORDER, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/21/13. (js)

[Docket No. 12]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

FRANK ROY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No.
13-4256 (RMB/JS)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff Frank Roy filed a Complaint (the
"Complaint") against Defendant Wal-Mart ("Wal-Mart").

On July 11,

2013, Wal-Mart removed this matter to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on the basis of diversity of citizenship
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Wal-Mart filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 6],
which this Court granted, finding that the Complaint contained
nothing more than bald assertions, and Plaintiff had not alleged
enough facts to state a claim that was plausible on its face. [Docket
No. 11].

Pursuant to this Court's Order, entered on October 2, 2013,

Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint curing the
deficiencies identified within twenty (20) days of the entry of that
Order.

The Court further ordered that, if Plaintiff failed to file

an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of
that Order, Plaintiff's Complaint would be automatically dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Instead of filing the amended complaint as directed, within the
time period directed, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 12], based on the allegations contained in his
Complaint as already dismissed by this Court.

Because Plaintiff

failed to file an amended complaint as directed, this Court denied
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and further ordered that the
above-captioned matter be administratively terminated subject to
re-opening within twenty days if Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
curing the deficiencies identified by this Court.

[Docket No. 15].

On November 18, 2013, this Court received Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint alleging that an employee of Defendant Wal-Mart's Vineland,
New Jersey store identified as "C.S.S. Anita" - "refused to give
Plaintiff a refund for over the counter medicine that did not agree
with medication that the Plaintiff was already taking." [Docket No.
18 at ¶4].

Plaintiff goes on to aver that he "is an African American

Senior Citizen who was denied his rights under 42 U.S.C. 20083-c
[sic]" and that the "Defendant misrepresented the terms of the
exchange policy that is clearly posted in the store."

[Id. at ¶6].

This Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and finds
that it still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As clearly stated in this Court's prior Order, Federal Rule of Civil
2

Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain:
(1) [A] short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support;
(2) [A] short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) [A] demand for the relief sought, which may include
relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
"[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement
to relief.
facts."

A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 311 (3d Cir. 2009).

Although the Amended Complaint at issue here concludes that
Plaintiff was "denied his rights" under a section of the United States
Code, he fails to adequately plead any facts in support of this
conclusion.

Instead, the Amended Complaint provides only vague and

conclusory assertions.
While this Court is mindful that this is a pro se pleading and
must be construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, see Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), Plaintiff's conclusory statements fail
to meet the minimal standards of Rule 8(a).

Moreover, in deciding

a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court should look to the
face of the complaint and decide whether, taking all of the
allegations of fact as true and construing them in a light most
favorable to the nonmovant, plaintiff has alleged “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
3

Bell
Here, the

Amended Complaint contains nothing more than unsupported bald
assertions and conclusions.

Plaintiff has, again, failed to allege

enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
FOR THESE REASONS,
IT IS on this, the 21st day of November 2013, hereby
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4