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.

Anderson v. Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia

March 23, 2017

KENNETH M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KANAWHA VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Dwane L. Tinsley United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for final disposition pursuant to the consent of the parties (ECF No. 8). Pending before the court is the defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 3).

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On August 23, 2016, the defendant removed this civil action to this court from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County based on federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff's one-page Complaint alleges as follows:

This lawsuit is being filed against Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority because certain drivers employed by KVRTA have continuously vi[o]lated my rights. Ten months ago a driver made an attempt to murder me with the bus he was driving! Simply stated, I charge KVRTA's drivers with overt racial discrimination, in violation of my rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Code. Suit amount $150, 000.

         (ECF No. 1-1 at 2).

         On August 29, 2016, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) and a Memorandum of Law in support thereof (ECF No. 4). The defendant's motion documents assert that the plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         On September 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed a one-page Letter-Form Response to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6), in which he requests that the court deny the motion and summarily asserts that he “will swear under oath in court that the facts alledged [sic; alleged] in the Complaint ware completely true an[d] valid.” (Id.) The defendant did not file a reply brief. This matter is ripe for adjudication.[1]

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys, and the court is obliged to construe liberally such complaints. However, in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if, viewing the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” While the complaint need not assert “detailed factual allegations, ” it must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555.

         The Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Twombly in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a civil rights case. The Court wrote:

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 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. [Twombly, 550 U.S.] at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 8 . . . does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556.
In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume ...

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.