United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
matter is before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Pierce, Porter, Ritscher, Lee, Carter, Sparks and
Vansciver. Docket No. 42. In support of that Motion,
Defendants have contemporaneously filed a Memorandum of Law.
Docket No. 43.
has not responded to the instant Motion.
filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaining about the conditions of his
confinement at the Montgomery County Jail. Docket No. 1.
Defendants filed the instant Motion and supporting Memorandum
of Law arguing Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against
them for which relief can be granted on the grounds Plaintiff
“. . . makes only sparse, non-meritorious allegations
against the individually named defendants to the
lawsuit.” Docket No. 43. Defendants argue that
Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable legal claim
against any of the Defendants in their individual capacity
renders his allegations insufficient to state a claim against
them under Section 1983, such that Plaintiff's claims
against them should be dismissed. Id.
reasons set forth below the undersigned recommends that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42) be GRANTED,
that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants, Pierce,
Porter, Ritscher, Lee, Carter, Sparks and Vansciver be
DISMISSED, and that they be terminated as Defendants in this
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides that a claim may be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In
order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a
complaint must contain either direct or inferential
allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a
recovery under some viable legal theory. Mezibov v.
Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir. 2005). Conclusory
allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
allegations will not suffice. Id. A complaint
containing a statement of facts that merely creates a
suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action is
insufficient. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). The “[f]actual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level”; they must “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. At
1965, 1974. See also, Ass'n of Cleveland Fire
Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th
the United States Supreme Court has addressed the appropriate
standard that must be applied in considering a Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Iqbal Court
stated in part as follows:
Two working principles underlie our decision in
Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice . . . . Rule 8 marks a notable and
generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading
regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of
discovery for plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible
claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss . . . .
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense. . . . But
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 “show[n]” -
“that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
556 U.S. at 678-79 (citations omitted).