Dudley v. City of Kinston et al
Filing
25
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 12/5/2018. (Sellers, N.)
IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA,
EASTERN DMSION
No. 4:18-CV-72-D
HOWARD DUDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF KINSTON, and
ANTHONY GREENE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
On July 6, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [D.E. 14] and filed a
memorandum in support [D.E. 15]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On September 9, 2018, plaintiff
responded in opposition [D.E. 20]. On October 9, 2018, defendants replied [D.E. 24].
The court has considered defendants' motion under the governing standard. See Fed. R. Civ.
-----
P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555--63, 570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010),
aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com. Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255
(4th Cir. 2009); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). The motion to dismiss
lacks merit and is denied.
In sum, the court DENIES defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 14].
SO ORDERED. This_.!_ day of December 2018.
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?