MCCALL v. FOSTER et al

Filing 19

ORDER. Defendants' renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16 ) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 2/16/21. (dcd) Staff note: a copy of this filing will be sent, via First-Class U.S. Mail, to Plaintiff's address of record.

Case 2:20-cv-00264-CB Document 19 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAIJON MCCALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BELLEVUE MCDONALDS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 20-264
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Defendants’ renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) will be granted, and this case
dismissed with prejudice.
The Court’s prior Order of dismissal (Doc. 13) explained how and why Plaintiff’s
original pleadings failed the standards under Federal Rule 8; and it provided a blue print
regarding how he might make “short and plain statement[s]” showing entitlement to relief. Id.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), while shorter, shows no improvement.
Defendants are correct that the amended pleadings provide mere legal conclusions,
untethered to factual allegations supporting viable claim(s) for relief. Plaintiff’s Rule 8
deficiencies dovetail with his failure to meet the plausibility standards. At bottom, Plaintiff
continues to merely laundry-list perceived slights (including ones not-actionable under any valid
theory of employment discrimination), devoid of facts and circumstances plausibly entitling him
to relief.
The Court already afforded an opportunity for amendment, specifically advising Plaintiff
that he must make best efforts − and that the Court did not anticipate granting further opportunity
for amendment. See Doc. 13 at 4. Plaintiff, too, seems to understand that this is the “end of the

Case 2:20-cv-00264-CB Document 19 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2

line,” having declined a response to Defendants’ renewed Motion to Dismiss. See text-Order
dated Jan. 7, 2021 (corresponding to Doc. 18) (providing Plaintiff until January 29, 2021
to respond; a date that has come and gone with no filing). Finally, comparing Plaintiff’s
amendments to his original pleadings, there is no reason to believe that additional amendment
will improve his outcome. Accordingly, dismissal with prejudice is warranted.
For all of the reasons stated above, Defendants’ renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16)
is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 16, 2021

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Daijon McCall
10 East North Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

2