United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
TERRY C. BRADLEY, Plaintiff,
L.L. SNIDOW, et al., Defendants.
Glen E. Conrad Senior United States District Judge.
C. Bradley, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by
filing a form complaint against the Virginia Tech Police
Department and two individual defendants. The plaintiff has
not paid the filing fee but will be granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis for purposes of initial review of
her complaint. For the following reasons, the court concludes
that the case must be dismissed for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
following factual allegations are taken from the complaint
and the attached exhibits. See Goines v. Valley Cmty.
Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016) (noting
that the court may consider exhibits to a complaint in
assessing its sufficiency).
2001, Bradley worked in the bookstore at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University ("Virginia Tech").
On October 22, 2001, the director of the bookstore contacted
the Virginia Tech Police Department and reported that Bradley
had admitted to taking money from the store by crediting
merchandise returns to her personal check card. Based on the
information provided, Sergeant L.L. Snidow and Officer F.M.
Miano "allegedly obtained a valid warrant to arrest the
plaintiff." Compl. 4, Dkt. No. 2. However, the plaintiff
claims that "no valid arrest warrant was obtained,"
and that what was identified as an arrest warrant was
actually a Virginia Uniform Summons. Id.; see
also Compl. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 2-1.
January 23, 2002, a grand jury returned an indictment
charging Bradley with embezzlement. Montgomery County Circuit
Court records indicate that Bradley entered a plea of guilty
on March 8, 2002, and that the presiding judge imposed a
three-year suspended sentence, three years of supervised
probation, and a fine and fees totaling $855.00. Bradley
signed a form acknowledging her conditions of probation on
March 18, 2002.
fifteen years later, Bradley applied for a job with a public
school system in North Carolina. A background check revealed
that Bradley had a prior felony conviction for embezzlement.
As a result of the conviction, the school system declined to
subsequently filed a petition requesting expungement of the
records related to the embezzlement charge. The petition was
denied by the Circuit Court on April 5, 2018. A subsequent
petition for appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of
Virginia on February 4, 2019.
9, 2019, Bradley filed the instant action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Snidow, Miano, and the Virginia Tech
Police Department. [*] Bradley claims that the defendants
violated her constitutional rights to equal protection and
due process by arresting her "based on falsified
documentation" and "representing such as a valid
warrant." Compl. at 4. She seeks to recover monetary
damages in the amount of $123, 000, 000. Id. at 5.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs in forma
pauperis proceedings, the court has a mandatory duty to
screen initial filings. Eriline Co. SA. v. Johnson,
440 F.3d 648, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2006). The court must dismiss
a case "at any time" if the court determines that
the complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The
standards for reviewing a complaint for dismissal under
§ 1915 (e) (2)(B)(ii) are the same as those which apply
when a defendant moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). De'Lonta v. Angelone,
330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, in reviewing a
complaint under this statute, the court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
Philips, 572 F.3d at 180. To survive dismissal for
failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual allegations "to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level" and "to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007); see
also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) ("A
complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief. If the allegations, for example,
show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, the complaint is subject to
indicated above, Bradley filed a form complaint designated
for pro se plaintiffs who wish to pursue a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a cause of action
against any person who, under color of state law, causes the
deprivation of another person's rights under the
Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. §
1983. For the following reasons, the court concludes that the
plaintiffs complaint fails to state a plausible claim under
§ 1983 against any of the named defendants.
Claims against the Virginia Tech ...