Kehm v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, No. 4:2014cv00444 - Document 71 (N.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge - re: 68 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 57 Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Air Line Pilots Association International. Ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted. By separate judgment, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant will be dismissed with prejudice. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L Cureton no longer assigned to case. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 5/19/2015) (ult)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kehm v. Air Line Pilots Association, International Doc. 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION CEVIN D. KEHM, Plaintiff, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-444-O ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 57), filed October 17, 2014, is GRANTED. By separate judgment, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant will be DISMISSED with prejudice.1 1 The Court notes that allegations of pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A plaintiff’s pleadings must be liberally construed, and ambiguity must be viewed in the pro se plaintiff’s favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A district court commits error “in dismissing a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.” Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). However, this error is removed if the plaintiff has alleged his “best case.” Id. A court can consider a plaintiff to have asserted his best case when the plaintiff has had “fair opportunity to make out [his] case.” Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1986). Here, the parties have previously briefed a separate motion to dismiss, which was later denied as moot when Plaintiff sought to amend his Complaint (ECF Nos. 20, 23, 25, 46, 48-49, 52). The Court finds that Plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to make out his case, and in fact has asserted his best case in his First Amended Complaint, Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2015. _____________________________________ Reed O’Connor UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE warranting dismissal with prejudice. See id.
]]>
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.
