Snyder v. Home Depot et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/14/11. (kld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
HARRISONBURG DIVISION
TOBY WAYNE SNYDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 5:11cv70336
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Toby Wayne Snyder, proceeding pro se, filed this action against defendants
Home Depot and Michael McBride on June 27, 2011, bringing assault, battery and defamation
claims arising from an alleged physical altercation on December 6, 2008. This matter is
currently before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 18, 2011, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that
plaintiff failed to name the correct corporate entity, failed to sufficiently plead a defamation
claim and that all plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
court issued an order on August 19, 2011, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), advising plaintiff of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has filed a timely
response to defendants’ motion to dismiss and has also filed a motion to amend his complaint to
correct the name of defendant Home Depot. 1 Based on the written submissions, the Court finds
1
Plaintiff initially brought suit against “Home Depot.” However, apparently, that defendant’s corporate
name is “Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.” Thus, plaintiff filed a motion to amend requesting to “change one of the names
in my suit from Home Depot to Home-Depot, USA, INC.” (Dkt. # 13.) Thereafter, defendants filed an opposition
to plaintiff’s motion to amend stating that while defendants do not object to plaintiff amending his complaint to
identify the correct corporate entity, defendants do object to any amendment naming “Home-Depot, USA, INC.”
which “does not exist.” (Dkt. # 15, p. 1.) The court will grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend, in part, and will
amend the complaint to name the correct corporate entity as specified by the defendants. Accordingly, the
complaint is hereby amended to name “Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.” as the proper party defendant, instead of “Home
Depot.”
that oral argument would not aid the court's adjudication. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe
for judicial determination, and for the reasons explained below, defendants’ motion to dismiss
will be granted.
I
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that that he was “physically attacked” by defendant McBride
on December 6, 2008, stating he was “attacked, assaulted and thrown around the store like an
animal.” (Dkt. # 1, p. 1.) The complaint indicates that McBride is “Quality Control Personnel”
and “not a police officer” and plaintiff further states “I did not have anything in my possession
on that day.” (Dkt. # 1, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges injuries resulting from this incident, including
damage to his left knee and left shoulder. Finally, plaintiff alleges that Mr. McBride
“misrepresented [his] character” on the day of the alleged attack. (Dkt. # 1, p. 1.)
Defendants argue that all of plaintiff’s claims are time-barred and further state that the
complaint lacks the factual specificity required to properly allege a defamation claim.
II
Although pleadings filed by a pro se party must be “liberally construed,” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted), under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint will be dismissed if “it appears certain that [plaintiff] can
prove no set of facts that would support his claim and would entitle him to relief.” Smith v.
Sydnor, 184 F.3d 356, 361 (4th Cir. 1999). The court must accept all of the complaint’s wellpleaded allegations and view them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. However, this
requirement applies to facts alone and not to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009). In addition, “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not shown –
2
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 1950 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right of relief above the speculative level, on the
assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Rather, “only a complaint
that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 1950.
Plaintiff’s allegation of assault and battery must be dismissed because it is untimely. The
complaint alleges the incident took place on December 6, 2008, but suit was not filed until June
27, 2011, outside of the two-year statute of limitations for assault and personal injury.2 Va. Code
Ann. § 8.01-243. Under Virginia law, a cause of action for assault accrues when the alleged
assault occurs. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-230. Plaintiff attempts to avoid the limitations period by
arguing that he was incarcerated shortly after the alleged incident. However, the statute of
limitations is not tolled simply because the plaintiff was incarcerated. See Almond v. Kent, 459
F.2d 200, 203 (4th Cir. 1972) (holding that in Virginia, the statute of limitations is not tolled
during a plaintiff's period of incarceration). Accordingly, plaintiff’s assault and battery claim is
barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and will be dismissed.
Likewise, plaintiff’s allegation of defamation must be dismissed because it is untimely.
The limitations period for a defamation claim is one year, which begins to run when the alleged
defamatory statement is made. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-230, -247.1; see also Brown v. Am.
Broad. Co., 704 F.2d 1296, 1300 (4th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff alleges that defendant McBride
2
With jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship, the court must look to Virginia law for a
determination of both the applicable statute of limitations and the time at which a claim accrues under the applicable
statute. Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., 704 F.2d 1296, 1299 (4th Cir. 1983) (citing Ragan v. Merchants
Transfer and Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530 (1949)).
3
“misrepresented [his] character” on the day of the alleged attack, which occurred on December 6,
2008. (Dkt. # 1, p. 1.) However, plaintiff did not file his lawsuit until June 2011, approximately
two and a half years after the alleged incident and clearly beyond the one year statute of
limitations.
Moreover, plaintiff fails to state a claim for defamation. Defamation is the intentional
publication of a false statement with the tendency to harm the plaintiff's reputation. Chapin v.
Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Jordan v. Kollman, 269 Va.
569, 575, 612 S.E.2d 203, 206 (2005) (a defamation claim under Virginia law requires
publication of an actionable statement with the required intent); Fleming v. Moore, 221 Va. 884,
889, 275 S.E.2d 632, 635 (1981) (noting that “Virginia makes no distinction between actions for
libel and those for slander”). Further, the pleading standard for a defamation claim under
Virginia law requires that plaintiff set out the exact words spoken or written. Fuste v. Riverside
Healthcare Ass'n Inc., 265 Va. 127, 134, 575 S.E.2d 858, 862 (2003). In this case, the plaintiff
merely alleges that defendant McBride “misrepresented [his] character.” (Dkt. # 1, p. 1.) Thus,
plaintiff does not provide the exact words alleged to be defamatory; indeed, plaintiff does not
even paraphrase an allegedly defamatory statement. Thus, the alleged defamation took place
outside the one-year limitations period and plaintiff also fails to provide the level of particularity
required for a defamation action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s defamation claim will be dismissed.
III
As set out above, a review of the record indicates that that plaintiff’s motion to amend
should be granted, in part, and the complaint should be amended to name “Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc.” as the proper party defendant, instead of “Home Depot.” The record further indicates that
4
defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted and the plaintiff's complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
For these reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. # 13) is GRANTED in part and
defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 8) is GRANTED and plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying
Order to plaintiff and all counsel of record.
Entered: September 14, 2011
/s/ Michael F. Urbanski
Michael F. Urbanski
United States District Judge
5
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?