Webb v. Kimmel, et al.

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 5/18/2023. (sbea)

Case 3:22-cv-00392-MHL Document 43 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 758

Case 3:22-cv-00392-MHL Document 43 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 759

Case 3:22-cv-00392-MHL Document 43 Filed 05/18/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 760

Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,630 (1962)) (explaining that a court may "act on its own
initiative" with respect to dismissals under Federal Rule 41(b)).
Further,when a plaintiff is granted authorization to proceed informa pauperis, the court
is obligated, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),to screen the operative complaint to determine,
among other things,whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (explaining that "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that ... the action ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted"). A
complaint should survive only when a plaintiff has set forth "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007). The
Court has reviewed Webb's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to this statutory screening
obligation and finds that the stated "facts" amount to no more than mere "labels and
conclusions" declaring that Webb is entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus,the
Second Amended Complaint,in its current form, fails to state a plausible claim for relief against
Defendants.
Accordingly, Webb's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 35.) Defendants WUSA9, American Broadcast Company Inc., and
James Christian Kimmel's Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as MOOT. (ECF Nos. 37, 41.)

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

5 - g - a.oa3

Date:
I
Richmond,Virginia

3