United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Orlando Ira Brown, on behalf of; International Recovery Services LLC, Plaintiffs,
First Palmetto Bank, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
Factual and Procedural Background
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.
Standard of Review
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
the court recommends that the Complaint be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without ...