Amos v. Welles et al

Filing 29

ORDER - The court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 16]. Amos's claims against defendant Welles are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant Welles is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action. Amos's Title VII claim is DISMISSED WIT HOUT PREJUDICE. Amos may file an amended complaint with a Title VII claim on or before November 24, 2018. If Amos fails to respond to this order by November 24, 2018, any Title VII claim against Doug Henry Buick GMC, Inc. is dismissed with prejudice without further order of the court. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 10/25/2018. Sent to Michael Don Amos at P.O. Box 331 Morehead City, NC 28557 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:18-CV-28-D

MICHAEL DON AMOS,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

BILL WELLES, and DOUG HENRY
BUICK GMC, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

On March 27, 2018, Michael Don Amos ("Amos" or "plaintiff') filed suit against Bill Welles
and Doug Henry Buick GMC, Inc. (collectively "defendants") [D.E. 5]. Amos, proceeding prose,
alleges that defendants violated Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of1964, 42 U .S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
("Title VII'') and the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111, et seq. ("ADA"). See id.
at 3-4; [D.E. 5-1] 1 On May 25,2018, defendants moved to dismiss Amos's claim against Welles
and his Title VII claim against Doug Henry Buick GMC, Inc., [D.E. 16], and filed a memorandum

in support [D.E. 17]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). OnJuly9, 2018, Amos responded in opposition
and attached a proposed amended complaint [D.E. 23]. On August 6, 2018, defendants replied [D.E.
26]. As explained below, the court grants defendants' motion to dismiss Amos's claims against.
Welles and Amos's Title VII claim against Doug Henry Buick GMC, Inc.
In analyzing a

motio~

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to state a claim upon ·which relief can be granted, a court must determine
whether the complaint is legally and factually sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atl. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 570 (2007);

Coleman v. Md. Court of Aweals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521
F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008); Goodman v. Praxair. Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007) (en
bane); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,93-94 (2007) (per curiam).

A courtneednotaccept

a complaint's legal conclusions, elements of~ cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement.

See, e.g., Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Nemet Chevrolet. Ltd. v.

Consumeraffairs.com. Inc., 591 F.3d 250,255 (4th Cir. 2009). Similarly, a court need not accept
as true ''unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano, 521 F.3d
at 302; see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Furthermore, in analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
a court may consider "documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters ofwhich
a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs. Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights. Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322
(2007).
Both the ADA's and Title VII's remedial schemes are ''plainly tied to employer, rather than
individual, liability." Lissau v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 1998); Baird ex rei.
Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462,472 (4th Cir. 1999). Therefore, Title VII and the ADA do not permit
actions against individual defendants. See Baird, 192 F.3d at 472; Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d
826, 830, 834 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Dearth v. Collins, 441 F .3d 931, 933 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam); Ward v. Coastal Carolina Health Care. P.A., 597 F. Supp. 2d 567, 569-70 (E.D.N.C.
2009); Lane v. Lucent Techs .. Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 590, 595-96 (M.D.N.C. 2005); Hockaday v.
Brownlee, 370 F. Supp. 2d 416, 421 (E.D. Va. 2004). Thus, the court dismisses Amos's claims
against Bill Welles for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As for Amos's Title VII claim against Doug Henry Buick GMC, Inc., Amos's complaint
contains no allegations of a Title VII violation. See [D.E. 5] 3-4; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of an employee's "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"). Thus,
2

Amos has failed to state a Title Vll claim. See,~' McCleacy-Evans v. Md. Dep't ofTransp. State
Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582, 585-88 (4th Cir. 2015V
In sum, the court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 16]. Amos's claims against
defendant Welles are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant Welles is DISMISSED as a
defendant in this action. Amos's Title VII claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Amos
may file an amended complaint with a Title Vll claim on or before November 24,2018. If Amos
fails to respond to this order by November 24, 2018, any Title VII claim against Doug Henry Buick
GMC, Inc. is dismissed with prejudice without further order of the court.
SO ORDERED. This U'"day of October 2018.

1

Amos's proposed amended complaint similarly fails to state a claim for relief under Title
Vll. See [D.E. 23-1] ~ 4 ("The acts complained of in this suit concern: Termination of employment
due to a disability.").
3