Rocquemore v. Central Transport LLC et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, denying 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 31 ) is now the operative set of allegations in this action. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/9/13.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Fred Rocquemore,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Central Transport, LLC; and
Joseph Warren,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO.2:12-cv-2201-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a motion by Defendants Central Transport, LLC, and
Joseph Warren to dismiss Plaintiff Fred Rocquemore's complaint for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure l2(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 20). After careful review, the Court
DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss, (id.), and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to amend his
complaint, (Dkt. No. 31).

Background
Plaintiff filed this action pro se on August 3, 2012. (Dkt. No. I). In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleged, in conclusory fashion, causes ofaction for: (1) discriminatory treatment; (2) harassment and
hostile work environment; (3) equal pay; and (4) unsafe working conditions. (fd. at 2-3). Due to
Plaintiffs pro se status, this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(6) on September 11,2012. (Dkt.
No. 20). Plaintiff responded on November 13,2012, and submitted with his response an affidavit

containing factual allegations that may provide a basis for his claims. (Dkt. No. 23). Defendant
replied, arguing that Plaintiffs "Affidavit, much like his Complaint, is devoid of any facts that
would give rise to, or substantiate, a claim for relief against Defendants." (Dkt. No. 28).
On March 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R").
(Dkt. No. 29). In that R&R, the Magistrate Judge observed that Plaintiff "says very little in his
Complaint about the factual basis for his claims," but the Magistrate Judge nevertheless expressed
the view that "[a] facial claim certainly seems present." (Dkt. No. 29 at 2). The Magistrate Judge
thus recommended that Plaintiff be given fifteen (15) days to amend his Complaint. (Id. at 3).
On April 5, 2013, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 31).
Legal Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). Thus, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the fmdings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
which permits the dismissal ofan action ifthe complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted." To survive such a motion, the Plaintiff must allege in his complaint "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). A complaint has "facial plausibility" where the pleading "allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

-2­

Though dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is sometimes appropriate, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure also direct courts to "freely give leave [to amend pleadings] when justice so requires."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This course of action deserves particular consideration when, as here, a
plaintiff is acting pro se, as it may allow for the development ofa potentially meritorious claim. See,

e.g., Villanueva v. Rivera, No. 5: 12-cv-399-MGL, 2012 WL 4762111, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 5,2012).
Discussion
The Magistrate Judge took seriously its responsibility to construe liberally the pleadings of
this pro se plaintiff. Even so, the Magistrate Judge was correct that Plaintiffs original Complaint
did not offer "enough facts" to state claims for discriminatory treatment, harassment and hostile
work environment, equal pay, and unsafe working conditions that are "plausible on [their] face."

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Plaintiffhas now submitted an Amended Complaint, offering additional
facts, including details about specific incidents, that may support his claims. (Dkt. No. 31). The
Court construes Plaintiffs submission as a motion to amend his Complaint and concludes that, at
this stage, justice requires granting that motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Villanueva,
2012 WL 4762111, at *1.
Conclusion
The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff Fred Rocquemore' s motion to amend his allegations.
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 31), is now the operative set ofallegations in this action.
Further, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and DENIES, without
prejudice, the motion by Defendants Central Transport, LLC and Joseph Warren to dismiss this
action. (Dkt. No. 20).

-3­

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark G e
United States District Judge

Charleston, South Carolina
2013
April

i,

-4­