Robert Terrell, III v. Post Holding, Inc.

E.D. Missouri

Robert Terrell, III v. Post Holding, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 11, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-01848

StatusUnknown

This text of Robert Terrell, III v. Post Holding, Inc. (Robert Terrell, III v. Post Holding, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Terrell, III v. Post Holding, Inc., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT TERRELL, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-1848-MTS ) POST HOLDING, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Robert Terrell, III’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After reviewing the Application, the Court will grant it. Now upon review of Plaintiff’s pleading, the Court finds this action should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A liberal construction of the Complaint and exhibits reveals that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (providing that pro se pleadings “are to be given liberal construction”); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989) (explaining that even for a pro se plaintiff, the court “will not supply additional facts” nor “construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded”)). Plaintiff has supplied no facts whatsoever that raise a plausible inference that Defendant failed to hire him because of his race, gender, or any other protected status. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); White v. Steak N Shake, 4:14-cv-0830-RWS, 2014 WL 1775482, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2014). For that reason, the Court will dismiss his action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Terrell, HI’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is GRANTED, and for the reasons explained herein, the Court will enter an Order of Dismissal, dismissing this action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). Dated this 11th day of February 2026. |) hl Tg UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT TERRELL, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-1848-MTS ) POST HOLDING, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Robert Terrell, III’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After reviewing the Application, the Court will grant it. Now upon review of Plaintiff’s pleading, the Court finds this action should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A liberal construction of the Complaint and exhibits reveals that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (providing that pro se pleadings “are to be given liberal construction”); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989) (explaining that even for a pro se plaintiff, the court “will not supply additional facts” nor “construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded”)). Plaintiff has supplied no facts whatsoever that raise a plausible inference that Defendant failed to hire him because of his race, gender, or any other protected status. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); White v. Steak N Shake, 4:14-cv-0830-RWS, 2014 WL 1775482, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2014). For that reason, the Court will dismiss his action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Terrell, HI’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. [2], is GRANTED, and for the reasons explained herein, the Court will enter an Order of Dismissal, dismissing this action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1). Dated this 11th day of February 2026. |) hl Tg UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robert Terrell, III v. Post Holding, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-terrell-iii-v-post-holding-inc-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack