Sparks v. McDonalds Co

E.D. Arkansas

Sparks v. McDonalds Co

DecidedAugust 5, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-00319

StatusUnknown

This text of Sparks v. McDonalds Co (Sparks v. McDonalds Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sparks v. McDonalds Co, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

BRANDON SPARKS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No.: 4:22-cv-00319-LPR

MCDONALDS CO. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Brandon Sparks brought this pro se suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),1 vaguely and generally asserting overtime violations, harassment, and retaliation.2 In screening the Complaint, I gave Mr. Sparks 30 days to address pleading deficiencies that needed attention––in particular, the specifics of who harmed him, the dates he was harmed, and who witnessed the harm.3 Although Mr. Sparks timely filed a one-page Amended Complaint,4 he has failed to offer any more specifics than were in his original Complaint. In fact, Mr. Sparks now abandons any FLSA claims and instead leans into his accusations of harassment and retaliation. However, he offers nothing but conclusory allegations.5 He does not allege the type of specific facts that would state a viable claim. Mr. Sparks’s case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.6 The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and

1 See 29 U.S.C. § 215. 2 Complaint, Doc. 2. 3 Order, Doc. 4. 4 Amended Complaint, Doc. 5. 5 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569–70 (2007); see also Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.”). For one example, while Plaintiff alleges that he “experienced gang violence from staff on a nightly basis,” he never describes anything any employee supposedly did to him. Amended Complaint, Doc. 5. Instead, his “gang violence” allegation seems to be that McDonalds staff “use[d] gang slang while serving customers,” which somehow put Plaintiff at risk of retaliation. Id. There are just not enough specifics here. accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.’ IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of August 2022.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 Id. § 1915(a)(3).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

BRANDON SPARKS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No.: 4:22-cv-00319-LPR

MCDONALDS CO. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Brandon Sparks brought this pro se suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),1 vaguely and generally asserting overtime violations, harassment, and retaliation.2 In screening the Complaint, I gave Mr. Sparks 30 days to address pleading deficiencies that needed attention––in particular, the specifics of who harmed him, the dates he was harmed, and who witnessed the harm.3 Although Mr. Sparks timely filed a one-page Amended Complaint,4 he has failed to offer any more specifics than were in his original Complaint. In fact, Mr. Sparks now abandons any FLSA claims and instead leans into his accusations of harassment and retaliation. However, he offers nothing but conclusory allegations.5 He does not allege the type of specific facts that would state a viable claim. Mr. Sparks’s case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.6 The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and

1 See 29 U.S.C. § 215. 2 Complaint, Doc. 2. 3 Order, Doc. 4. 4 Amended Complaint, Doc. 5. 5 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569–70 (2007); see also Aschroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.”). For one example, while Plaintiff alleges that he “experienced gang violence from staff on a nightly basis,” he never describes anything any employee supposedly did to him. Amended Complaint, Doc. 5. Instead, his “gang violence” allegation seems to be that McDonalds staff “use[d] gang slang while serving customers,” which somehow put Plaintiff at risk of retaliation. Id. There are just not enough specifics here. accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.’ IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of August 2022.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 Id. § 1915(a)(3).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sparks v. McDonalds Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-mcdonalds-co-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack