Campbell v. Rhyne et al

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/10/2013. Counsel is directed to read Order in its entirety for critical information. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)

Campbell v. Rhyne et al

Doc. 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:13-CV-69-BO
ORLANDO CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CURTIS RHYNE, and
WILLIE PRIDGEN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

___________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [DE 8]. For the reasons stated herein, the defendants' motion is
GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se the Court must consider the claims presented to it
in a different light than it might consider the filings of professional attorneys. Although the Court
must liberally construe pleadings submitted by prose claimants, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), "a district court is not required to recognize obscure or extravagant
claims defying the most concerted efforts to unravel them." Well v. Dep't ofSoc. Servs., 901
F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
Here, the plaintiffs complaint essentially states a claim for relief under whichever federal
law will provide him with the most significant relief. Further, the substance of his claim is not
entirely clear to the Court- in one passage of his complaint the plaintiff alleged he was
discriminated against because of his race, in another passage he alleged that he was
discriminated because he was "talking about a black female." Regardless of its lack of clarity,
1

Dockets.Justia.com

the Court construes the plaintiff's complaint as one stating a claim for relief under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII prohibits "employers" from discriminating against any individual because of his
"race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Fourth Circuit has
held that supervisors in their individual capacity do not fall under the Act's definition of
employer. Lissau v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 180 (1998). In his complaint, the
plaintiff named two managers individually, but did not name his actual employer. Because such
claims against managers in their individual capacity cannot be brought under Title VII, the
plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief might be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this
matter is DISMISSED. The CLERK IS DIRECTED to close the file.

SO ORDERED.
This the _I_!__ day of August, 2013.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRIC

2