IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DONALD WADE CEPHAS, ) . Plaintiff, ) ) Vv. ) CA, No. 23-1295-GBW ) APPLE GREEN, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Wade Cephas, Newark, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

May [5, 2024 Wilmington, Delaware .

\ (ea Ny . WILLIAMS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff Donald Wade Cephas filed his pro se

Complaint in this action. (D.I. 2). He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. (D.L. 4). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint

pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff ostensibly attempts to bring a wrongful termination claim against

Defendant Apple Green PLC, and he asserts jurisdiction in this Court on the

purported basis that the United States or a federal official or agency is a defendant,

as well as federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that, after he reported

another employee to his supervisor for stealing sodas from Starbucks, the

employee told Plaintiff that he would shoot him if he got fired. Plaintiff's

supervisor informed him that she had also seen the employee stealing and that she

would report the matter to her superiors. Plaintiff's superior’s manager told her

that he had caught the employee doing drugs on company property. Plaintiff and

his supervisor did not come to work the next day out of concern for their safety

with the employee still being employed while under investigation. Plaintiff and his

supervisor were terminated for “no-cali-no-show,” despite calling to express their

concerns for their safety. (D.I. 2 at 6). Plaintiff seeks $125,000 in damages.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the

screening provisions of

(e)(2)(B) if “the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Bail v.

Famiglio,

(3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also

(e)(2) (in,forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual

allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro

se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny,

(3d Cir. 2008).

Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and the

Complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 US. 89, 94

(2007). □

A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim.

See Dooley v. Wetzel,

(3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is

deemed frivolous only where it relies on an “‘indisputably meritless legal theory’

or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.””

The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling

on Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough,

(3d Cir.

1999). A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and

conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly,

(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that

a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby,

, 12

(2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect

statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See

.

A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (lI).

take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identity

allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the

assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations,

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,

(3d Cir.

2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint “show”

that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal,

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a “context-specific task that

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Ili. DISCUSSION Apple Green PLC is a private company; it is not the United States or a

federal official or agency. The Court construes Plaintiff's Complaint as bringing a

claim for wrongful termination under Title VII. The claim fails, however, because _ Plaintiff does not allege that his termination was based on him being a member of a

_ protected class. The Court will, therefore, dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant . to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) and deny as moot his request for appointed counsel. Amendment is futile. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, this Court will dismiss the Complaint. Amendment is futile. An appropriate Order will be entered.