AGOLLI v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., JFM-11-2806. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20120502a72
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed this pro se action for employment discrimination. On January 9, 2012, this court ordered that plaintiff (who is appearing pro se ) file a more definite statement. Plaintiff did so, albeit a little late. Defendant has filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motion. The motion will be granted. Plaintiff's new statement is as prolix and confusing as was the original complaint. Thus, plaintiff has not c
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed this pro se action for employment discrimination. On January 9, 2012, this court ordered that plaintiff (who is appearing pro se ) file a more definite statement. Plaintiff did so, albeit a little late. Defendant has filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motion. The motion will be granted. Plaintiff's new statement is as prolix and confusing as was the original complaint. Thus, plaintiff has not co..
More
MEMORANDUM
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed this pro se action for employment discrimination. On January 9, 2012, this court ordered that plaintiff (who is appearing pro se) file a more definite statement. Plaintiff did so, albeit a little late. Defendant has filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded to the motion.
The motion will be granted. Plaintiff's new statement is as prolix and confusing as was the original complaint. Thus, plaintiff has not complied with this court's order requiring her to file a more definite statement. Although the pleadings of a pro se litigant should be liberally construed, neither an opposing party nor the court can be required to glean through an unintelligible complaint to ascertain the claim or claims that a plaintiff may be asserting. See Tarpley v. Stouffer, No. L-10-2140, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116942, at *7-8 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2011).
A separate order granting defendant's motion to dismiss this action is being entered herewith.
Source: Leagle
