Stanley v. Waste Industries of Brunswick County
ORDER GRANTING 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. The clerk is directed to close this matter. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 5/23/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JOSEPH EVON STANLEY,
WASTE INDUSTRIES OF
This matter is before the Court on defendant Waste Industries of Brunswick County's
("WI") motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4), (5) and (6) [DE
7]. Pro se plaintiff never responded to the motion despite requesting [DE 15] and receiving [DE
16] an extension of time to file a response. The extended deadline for responding has expired and
the motion is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a pro se complaint with the Court on December 16,
2013. Although it is unclear from the three-page, handwritten complaint exactly which law
plaintiff is proceeding under, he has attached to the complaint a copy of the dismissal and notice
of rights issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on his
charge. This suggests he is proceeding based upon a law that the EEOC enforces. Given the
allegations of race discrimination in the complaint, it is likely that plaintiff is proceeding under
Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs complaint alleging that it improperly names
defendant and therefore service is insufficient because an entity other than that named in the
summons has been served. Defendant further argues that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
A Rule 12(b)( 6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of a plaintiffs complaint.
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). When ruling on the motion, the court
"must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007)). Although complete and detailed factual allegations are not required, "a plaintiffs
obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals ofthe elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a court need not accept
as true a plaintiffs "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Eastern
Shore Mkts. v. JD. Assocs. Ltd., 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). A trial court is "not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Here, plaintiff has done nothing but recite legal conclusions of race discrimination. To
establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination on the terms and conditions of
employment, an aggrieved employee must show, among other things, that he suffered an adverse
employment action and that he was treated differently than a similarly situated, non-protected
employee. James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371, 375-76 (4th Cir. 2004). There
are simply no facts alleged in this case that suggest that plaintiff suffered any adverse
employment action or that WI treated him less favorably than a white employee who engaged in
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs
claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. The clerk is directed to close the file.
This theM day of May, 2014.
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
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?