Tipton v. Page et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:25-cv-00389-FDW
KEITH MARK TIPTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
) AND ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW
)
SAMUEL PAGE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, [Doc. 1],
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 5].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Keith Mark Tipton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 4, 2025,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Graham County Sheriff’s Office and Samuel
Page, Jeffrey Oswalt, Bryan Carpenter, and Dylan Taylor, all identified as officials with the
Sheriff’s Office. [Doc. 1]. In his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to take issue with various aspects
of his arrest and criminal proceedings in Graham County, North Carolina, between August and
November 2022. [See id.]. Plaintiff sues Defendants Page and Oswalt in their official capacities
only and Defendants Carpenter and Taylor in their individual and official capacities. [Id. at 2-3].
Plaintiff claims violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Articles 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 17 of the “Declaration
of Human Rights.” [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff appears to claim having suffered various physical injuries
as well as “bogus charges.” [Id. at 6]. For relief, Plaintiff states only that he “want[s] justice.”
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 6 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 4

2
[Id.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to
determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or]
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under
§ 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an
indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as
fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore,
a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear
failure to allege facts in his Complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law.
Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
IV. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed
by a “person” acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S.
166, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023).
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 6 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review. Plaintiff’s allegations are so meandering and
nonsensical that they fail to satisfy the most basic pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief”); Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990) (conclusory allegations, unsupported
by specific allegations of material fact are not sufficient); Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d
193, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2002) (a pleader must allege facts, directly or indirectly, that support each
element of the claim). The Court cannot and will not scour and piece apart Plaintiff’s rambling
stream-of-conscious pleading to state a claim for him. Plaintiff is also admonished that it appears
that some or all his claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. The Court will, however,
allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to properly state a claim for relief, if the facts allow.
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails initial review. The Court will allow Plaintiff
to amend his Complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order to properly state a claim for relief.
Any amended complaint will be subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and will
supersede the Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted.
If Plaintiff amends his Complaint, he should succinctly and clearly allege the factual basis
for each claim against each Defendant and which constitutional right(s) he contends were violated
by which conduct. Plaintiff is also admonished that he shall not include any personal
identifying information of third parties, including phone numbers and dates of birth, in any
filings with this Court.1 The Court may summarily strike any such future filings.
1 There is simply no reason to include any individual’s phone number in a pleading in this action.
The Court does not conduct discovery; the parties do.
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 6 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date
of this Order in which to amend his Complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. If
Plaintiff fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank prisoner § 1983 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: November 13, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 6 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 4