HARDAGE v. STATE, CIV-11-295-JHP. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20120403b78
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Sequoyah County's FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.# 63). In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact. Bell Atlan
Summary: ORDER JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Sequoyah County's FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.# 63). In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact. Bell Atlant..
More
ORDER
JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Sequoyah County's FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.# 63). In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact. Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). Yet the Court need not accept as true legal conclusions from the complaint or "`naked assertion[s]' devoid of `further factual enhancement.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ____ U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The Court, after careful review of the pleadings, and based upon the reasons as more fully set forth in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet this standard and Defendant Sequoyah County's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt # 63) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
