Bond v. United States

3 Citing cases

  1. Proctor v. Scruggs

    Civil Action RDB-23-3396 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2024)

    As the Fourth Circuit has explained, “[f]utility is apparent if the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the applicable rules and accompanying standards.” Bond v. United States, 742 Fed.Appx. 735, 736 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Without reaching the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, it is not facially obvious that the Amended Complaint is futile.

  2. Menk v. The Mitre Corp.

    CIVIL 1:23-cv-00053-JRR (D. Md. May. 17, 2024)

    Katyle v. Penn Nat'l. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2011); Bond v. United States, 742 F. App'x. 735 (4th Cir. 2018).

  3. Bey v. Lybrand

    C.A. No. 2:19-cv-03297-BHH-MGB (D.S.C. Jul. 8, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    And because Plaintiff's amended complaint cannot cure the deficiencies in the initial Complaint, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 46) must be denied as futile and recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 20, 23) for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Bond v. United States, 742 F. App'x 735, 737-38 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1619 (2019) (affirming denial of plaintiff's request to amend complaint as futile because "bare assertions" in the proposed amended complaint were insufficient to plead a claim to relief); Martin, 2016 WL 7239914, at *2-6 (dismissing complaint after denying motion to amend where both the initial and amended complaints failed to plead sufficient factual allegations in support of the alleged causes of action); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 ("Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hypertechnical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.")