Opinion
2:24-CV-49-FL
10-11-2024
KENNY R. HOLLEY, Plaintiff, v. COMM. OF SOC. SEC. MARTIN O'MALLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT B. JONES, JR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, [DE-2], and for frivolity review of the complaint, [DE-1], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient evidence of inability to pay the required court costs and the application is allowed. However, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court shall dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii); see Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994) (explaining Congress enacted predecessor statute 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) “to prevent abuse of the judicial system by parties who bear none of the ordinary financial disincentives to filing meritless claims”). A case is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28.
In order to state a claim on which relief may be granted, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff must allege more than labels and conclusions. Id.
In the present case, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and pleadings drafted by a pro se litigant are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See id.; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994). However, the principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not without limits; the district courts are not required “to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
IL ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Kenny Holley brings this action against Defendants Martin O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security; Angel Quiros, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections; and Andrea Barton Reeves, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Social Services. Compl. [DE-1] at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a litany of other federal regulations, statutes, and procedural rules by discriminating and conspiring against him. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks over $100 million in 2 damages.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Here, Plaintiff has only made conclusory allegations that Defendants discriminated and conspired against him. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Smith v. Wiggins, No. 2:21-CV-9-BO, 2021 WL 1238223, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Apr. 1, 2021) (finding conclusory allegations of discrimination without factual support were insufficient to state a claim), aff'd, No. 21-1382, 2022 WL 4534271 (4th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022); see also Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hile a plaintiff is not charged with pleading facts sufficient to prove [his] case, as an evidentiary matter, in [his] complaint, a plaintiff is required to allege facts that support a claim for relief”), cert, denied, 540 U.S. 940 (2003). Accordingly, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is allowed, and it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
IT IS DIRECTED that a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation be served on Plaintiff. You shall have until October 25, 2024, to file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The presiding district judge must conduct his or her own review (that is, make a de novo determination) of those portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is properly made and may accept, reject, or modify the determinations in the Memorandum and Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See, e.g, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Local Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines specified in local rules), 72.4(b), E.D. N.C.
If you do not file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation by the foregoing deadline, you will be giving up the right to review of the Memorandum and Recommendation by the presiding district judge as described above, and the presiding district judge may enter an order or judgment based on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review. In addition, your failure to file written objections by the foregoing deadline will bar you from appealing to the Court of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding district judge based on the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).