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.

Isioye v. Coastal Carolina University

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

November 30, 2018

OLUWASEGUN ISRAEL ISIOYE, Plaintiff,
v.
COASTAL CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, DAVID DeCENZO, TRIVAS OVERTON, PRESTON McEVER FLOYD, SGT. DAVID KLAUDER, DEPUTY CHIEF RODNEY BROCK, and CAPTAIN CHARLES RODNEY SESSIONS, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging sexual assault and battery, discrimination, retaliation, excessive harassment, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy, which occurred while he was a student at Coastal Carolina University in May of 2015. Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35) filed by Defendants Coastal Carolina University (CCU), Rodney Brock, David DeCenzo, David Klauder, Trivas Overton, and Charles Rodney Session.[1] Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was advised pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that a failure to respond to the moving Defendants' motion could result in dismissal of his case. Plaintiff timely filed a response (ECF No. 48). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC. This report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.

         II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff alleges he was sexually assaulted by a professor, Defendant Preston McEver Floyd, who drove Plaintiff to his residence on a false pretense in May of 2015. Floyd also sent nude pictures and explicit text messages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff notified the Dean of Student Affairs and the public safety department. Defendant Captain Charles Rodney Sessions told Plaintiff he would be pursuing criminal charges. The school authority told Plaintiff that CCU counsel was going to conduct a panel hearing, but the hearing never occurred. Plaintiff alleges CCU blocked his access to his personal email account for a week and accessed his email and deleted incriminating evidence. The President of CCU offered Plaintiff $7, 500 as hush money and told him to withdraw from school, which Plaintiff rejected. Plaintiff alleges injuries of emotional distress, mental anguish, severe depression and anxiety, and needing counseling. Plaintiff seeks a refund of his full tuition amount or the opportunity to get his degree. He also seeks punitive damages. See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 22).

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion examines whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that, under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). 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.

         Expounding on its decision in Twombly, the United States Supreme Court stated in Iqbal:

[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations, ” but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.”
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 556, 557, 570) (citations omitted); see also Bass v. Dupont, 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir.2003).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         As stated above, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for sexual assault and battery, discrimination, retaliation, excessive harassment, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy. Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim as to any of these causes of action. In his response, Plaintiff clarifies that he alleges causes of action for sexual assault, battery, and sexual harassment only against Floyd. He also states in his response that he brings his claims pursuant to Title IX.

         A. Eleventh ...


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.