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.

Brown v. First Palmetto Bank

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

August 28, 2018

Orlando Ira Brown, on behalf of; International Recovery Services LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
First Palmetto Bank, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          PAIGE J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Orlando Ira Brown filed this Complaint on behalf of himself and the corporate plaintiffs named in the caption. Brown is proceeding in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this matter should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and issuance and service of process.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Brown indicates that the defendant issued a trespass notice against him when he showed up to the defendant's bank branch for an appointment and was surrounded by police. He indicates he seeks damages for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In a motion for summary judgment he filed, he indicates he has a mental disability, and that was the reason for the trespass notice.

         II. Discussion

         A. Standard of Review

         Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. This statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

         This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).

         B. Analysis

         Based on the preliminary review, it appears Brown is attempting to prosecute this civil action on behalf of himself and the named corporate plaintiffs. However, Brown is not an attorney, and corporations may not proceed in this court without counsel. See Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d, 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991) (collecting cases); see also Ashbaugh v. Corp. of Bolivar, 481 Fed.Appx. 840 (2012). Therefore, the court issued an order on July 9, 2018 directing the named corporate plaintiffs to obtain counsel within thirty days or be terminated as plaintiffs. (ECF No. 20.) The court has not received a response to that order and the deadline to respond has lapsed. Because the corporate plaintiffs have not obtained counsel in this case, the court finds that any claims they are attempting to raise in this matter must be dismissed without prejudice.

         To the extent Brown seeks to prosecute this case personally, the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Brown indicates the court's basis for jurisdiction is a claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (presumably under Title III, which bars discrimination in public accommodations from private entities based on disability), but Brown fails to provide any facts that would plausibly show that he was discriminated against based on a disability. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Accordingly, the court finds that Brown's claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         III. Conclusion

         Accordingly, the court recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without ...


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.