This page was read by OCR. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Case 3:22-cv-00134-JAG-MRC Document 26 Filed 12/22/22 Page 3 of 12 PagelD# 132
can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are
not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “require[ ] only ‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only “labels and conclusions” or
a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Jd. (citations omitted). Instead, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id.
(citation omitted), stating a claim that is “plausible on its face,” id. at 570, rather than merely
“conceivable.” Jd. “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 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In order for a claim or
complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, therefore, the plaintiff must “allege facts
sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim.” Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir.
2002); Jodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally
construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act
as the inmate’s advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate
failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th
Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.
1985).
Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)