Cook v. Kraft Foods Global, No. 05-2327 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2327 RONALD LEE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; GROUP, INCORPORATED; THOMAS CARLYLE, ALTRIA Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-576-3-RLW) Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 8, 2006 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Lee Cook, Appellant Pro Se. King Fitchett Tower, Durward Earl Baggett, IV, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald L. Cook appeals from the district court s order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the denial of the motion to remand and the dismissal of Cook s retaliatory discharge claim for the reasons stated by the district court from the bench. (See Hearing Transcript at 14-17). Regarding Cook s common law tort claims, the district court did not specify a reason for dismissing these claims. However, while the liberal pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) demand only a short and plain statement of the claim, a plaintiff must often offer more detail than the bald statement that he has a valid claim of some type against the Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405 (4th Cir. 2001). defendant. The presence [ ] of a few conclusory legal terms does not insulate a complaint from dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when the facts alleged in the complaint do not support the legal conclusion. Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 577 (4th Cir. Young v. City of 2001) (dismissing Fourteenth Amendment claims where complaint alleged deliberate indifference but included no facts to support allegation). In committed Cook s grievous complaint, torts by he asserted committing that his employer perjury, slander, accusing the plaintiff of filing a false workers compensation - 2 - claim, malingering, ploys, and has allowed Personnel Manager Thomas Carlyle to carry out a personal vendetta. Cook offered no facts, dates, or details to support his claims either in his complaint, in response to the motion to dismiss, or on appeal. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing these causes of action. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
