Springs v. City of Charlotte et al

Filing 14

ORDER, as to 7 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Responses due by 2/13/2012). Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 1/11/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-cv-588-RJC

MALCOLM SPRINGS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF CHARLOTTE;
)
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT;
)
MITCHELL REEDY; Officer, Charlotte
)
Mecklenburg Police Department;
)
JOSEPH MALONI, Officer, Charlotte
)
Mecklenburg Police Department;
)
MARVIN BELL, Officer, Charlotte
)
Mecklenburg Police Department; and
)
BRENT HARRISON, Officer, Charlotte
)
Mecklenburg Police Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER and NOTICE

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, filed December 20, 2011. (Doc. No. 7). In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se of the heavy
obligation he carries in responding to Defendants’ Motion.
On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants Bell,
Harrison, Maloni and Reedy had subjected him to excessive force during his arrest; and that such
actions violated various policies of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department and the City of
Charlotte. (Doc. No 1 at 3). By way of relief, Plaintiff requests, inter alia, one hundred million
dollars in damages. (Id. at 5). On December 7, 2011, counsel made an appearance on behalf of
all Defendants, (Doc. No. 4), and filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 6). On

December 20, 2011, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings along
with a supporting Memorandum. (Doc. Nos. 7; 8).
A motion for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is decided using the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Walker v. Kelly, 589 F.3d 127, 139
(4th Cir. 2009). Thus, in responding to such a Motion, Plaintiff must show that he has made
sufficient allegations to support a cause of action which is recognized by law. That is, Plaintiff’s
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive such a Motion, Plaintiff must
show that his complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1960 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at
1949. Plaintiff is further advised that the Court may take judicial notice of matters of public
record, and may consider documents attached to the Complaint as well as those attached to the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, so long as those documents “are integral to the complaint
and authentic.” Philips, 572 F.3d at 180 (citing Blankenship v. Manchin. 471 F.3d 523, 526 n.1
(4th Cir. 2006).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order to file his response to
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff’s failure to respond
may result in granting a judgment on the pleadings for Defendants, that is, in the
dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice.
2

2.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order and Notice to the parties,
including Malcolm Springs, Inmate No. 403576, Mecklenburg County Jail, Post
Office Box 34429, Charlotte, NC 28234-4429.

Signed: January 11, 2012

3