United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Danville Division
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sarah Touart
Reece's Motion to Amend the Complaint [ECF No. 6] and
Defendant Dr. Mark R. Jones's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.
8]. Although the Pretrial Order (and Roseboro
Notice) filed in this case both advised Plaintiff of the
possible result for failing to defend against Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion. I
heard oral arguments from both parties on July 25, 2017, and
the matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons
stated herein, I will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and deny Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, as the proposed
amendment is futile.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL
filed suit against “Dr. Mark Jones, Pittsylvania County
Schools” (“Defendant”) in Pittsylvania
County General District Court using this Court's blank
pro se complaint. On May 22, 2017, Defendant removed
the action to this Court.
alleges only the following:
In 2015, I began requesting a grievance procedure, which was
uniform and in compliance with codes set by the general
Assembly [sic]. I requested this procedure and that
it be followed multiple times from 2015 to 2017. In 2017 I
was dismissed. I was denied due process and therefore lost
the benefit of a full retirement because I was dismissed well
before the age of retirement. I was dismissed w/o being given
a grievance process in accordance with the General Assembly.
¶ III [ECF No. 1-2.] She contends these actions violated
her Due Process and Fifth Amendment rights.
Motion to Amend the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to change
“2015” to “2014.” (See Mot.
to Amend Compl., May 25, 2017 [ECF No. 6].)
26, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). [ECF No. 8.] The clerk sent Plaintiff a
Roseboro notice that same day, setting a response
deadline of June 12, 2017. Plaintiff did not respond to
removal of this case, I entered a Pretrial Order which
stated, in relevant part: “EXCEPT FOR GOOD
CAUSE SHOWN, IF BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS ARE NOT
FILED, IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT THE MOTION IS WELL
TAKEN.” (Order, May 23, 2017 [ECF No. 4]
(emphasis in original).) Despite this admonition, Plaintiff
never filed a brief in opposition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
initial matter, pro se complaints are held to
“‘less stringent standards than the formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. In determining facial plausibility, the court
must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true.
Id. The Complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief” and sufficient “[f]actual
allegations . . . to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the
Complaint must “allege facts sufficient to state all
the elements of [the] claim.” Bass v. E.I. Dupont
de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003).
Although “a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations,
” a pleading that merely offers “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.