Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lyle v. Montgomery County

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

February 15, 2017

ROBERT DOUGLAS LYLE, Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ABL FOOD SERVICE, et al., Defendants.

          Crenshaw Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         Plaintiff has not responded to the instant Motion.

         Plaintiff 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.

         For the 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 action.

         II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

         A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

         Fed. R. 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 Cir. 2007).

         Moreover, 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).

         B. 42 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.