From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. Bagley

United States District Court, D. Maryland
Jul 28, 2011
Civil No. - JFM-11-1117 (D. Md. Jul. 28, 2011)

Summary

granting defendants' motion to dismiss, including claims against non-moving defendant who had not been served

Summary of this case from Gauthier v. Kirkpatrick

Opinion

Civil No. — JFM-11-1117.

July 28, 2011


MEMORANDUM


William T. Gray has filed this pro se action asserting a variety of claims, including ones for employment discrimination and violation of his civil rights, arising from the fact that he was denied employment as a school security assistant for the Board of Education of Prince George's County. Plaintiff has sued a variety of individuals but not the Board of Education itself. All of the defendants, other than Emory Waters (who apparently has not been served) have filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motions.

All of the motions to dismiss will be granted and this action will be dismissed as to all defendants, including Mr. Waters. Plaintiff has not included in the complaint any allegations that indicate that any of the individuals whom he has named as defendants committed any wrongs, particularly wrongs that are legally cognizable. Ordinarily, given plaintiff's pro se status, I would consider granting him leave to amend. However, it is clear not only from the complaint but also from plaintiff's oppositions to the motions to dismiss, that plaintiff's reasoning is disjointed and that he has no cognizable claims. Therefore, granting him leave to amend would simply cause unnecessary expense and delay.

A separate order granting the motions to dismiss and dismissing this action for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to all defendants is being entered herewith.


Summaries of

Gray v. Bagley

United States District Court, D. Maryland
Jul 28, 2011
Civil No. - JFM-11-1117 (D. Md. Jul. 28, 2011)

granting defendants' motion to dismiss, including claims against non-moving defendant who had not been served

Summary of this case from Gauthier v. Kirkpatrick

denying motion for leave to amend where "plaintiff's reasoning is disjointed and . . . [states] no cognizable claims"

Summary of this case from Battle v. Burwell

denying motion for leave to amend where "plaintiff's reasoning is disjointed and... [states] no cognizable claims"

Summary of this case from Shilling v. Thomas
Case details for

Gray v. Bagley

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM T. GRAY, III v. KIM BAGLEY, ET AL

Court:United States District Court, D. Maryland

Date published: Jul 28, 2011

Citations

Civil No. - JFM-11-1117 (D. Md. Jul. 28, 2011)

Citing Cases

Shilling v. Thomas

Thus, the negligence claim against the School Defendants still would fail to state a claim, and therefore,…

Gauthier v. Kirkpatrick

(See Doc. 34 at 11.) The Court therefore concludes that the objective component of the Eighth Amendment…