Summary
granting defendants' motion to dismiss, including claims against non-moving defendant who had not been served
Summary of this case from Gauthier v. KirkpatrickOpinion
Civil No. — JFM-11-1117.
July 28, 2011
MEMORANDUM
William T. Gray has filed this pro se action asserting a variety of claims, including ones for employment discrimination and violation of his civil rights, arising from the fact that he was denied employment as a school security assistant for the Board of Education of Prince George's County. Plaintiff has sued a variety of individuals but not the Board of Education itself. All of the defendants, other than Emory Waters (who apparently has not been served) have filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motions.
All of the motions to dismiss will be granted and this action will be dismissed as to all defendants, including Mr. Waters. Plaintiff has not included in the complaint any allegations that indicate that any of the individuals whom he has named as defendants committed any wrongs, particularly wrongs that are legally cognizable. Ordinarily, given plaintiff's pro se status, I would consider granting him leave to amend. However, it is clear not only from the complaint but also from plaintiff's oppositions to the motions to dismiss, that plaintiff's reasoning is disjointed and that he has no cognizable claims. Therefore, granting him leave to amend would simply cause unnecessary expense and delay.
A separate order granting the motions to dismiss and dismissing this action for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to all defendants is being entered herewith.