Wriglesworth v. Esper

District Court, E.D. North Carolina

Wriglesworth v. Esper

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION . No. 5:18-CV-339-D

SONIA I. WRIGLES WORTH, ) ) . Plaintiff, ) . ) v. ) ORDER ) MARK T. ESPER, Secretary, U.S. ) me Department of the Army, ) ) Defendant. ) ER

On January 7, 2019, Sonia I. Wriglesworth (“Wriglesworth” or “plaintiff’), proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint against Mark T. Esper (“Esper” or “defendant”) [D.E. 15].! On May 13, 2019, Esper moved to dismiss Wriglesworth’s complaint [D.E. 22] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 23]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On July 18, 2019, Wriglesworth responded in opposition [D.E. 28]. Esper did not reply. As explained below, the court grants Esper’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Wriglesworth’s amended complaint. Wriglesworth is a familiar litigant. See, e.g., Wriglesworth v. Speer, No. 5:17-CV-252-D,

2018 WL 1950432

, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2018) (unpublished), appeal dismissed in part and aff'd in part,

765 F. App’x 6

(4th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (unpublished): ‘The court has considered Wriglesworth’s amended complaint under the governing standard. See Asheroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 677

-80 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 554-63

(2007); Erickson v. Pardus,

1 Esper argues that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) now applies a 21-day deadline for amendment without leave of court after motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b). Although Esper is correct, the court amends its order of April 26, 2019, to grant Wriglesworth leave to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assoes.,

602 F.3d 597, 602-03

(4th Cir. 2010). Thus, the court considers Wriglesworth’s amended complaint.

551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007) (per curiam); Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals,

626 F.3d 187, 190

(4th Cir. 2010), aff'd,

566 U.S. 30

(2012); Giarratano v. Touma

521 F.3d 298, 302

(ath Cir. 2008); Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

901 F.2d 387

, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). Even liberally construed, Wriglesworth’s amended complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief. See [D.E. 236-24; Wriglesworth, WL 1950432, at *1-2.

In sum, the court GRANTS Esper’s motion to dismiss DE. 2] and DISMISSES Wriglesworth’s complaint [D.E. 15]. The clerk shall close the canes .

SOORDERED. This 1 day of September 2019.

. United States District J udge

2

Reference

Status
Unknown