Davis v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ADRIAN T. DAVIS,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-0671
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this action on February 27, 2026, against Amazon.Com
Services, Inc. (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff was permitted to proceed as a pauper
(ECF No. 4), the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the
undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
A claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint s allegations are true.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). As the Supreme Court has
held, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
Case 1:26-cv-00671-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/01/26 Page 1
of 3

2
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78 (2009). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. If the complaint simply pleads facts that are “merely consistent with”
a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. As the Court further observed:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly.
First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the
allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice . . . . Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure
from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era,
but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff
armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a
complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a
motion to dismiss . . . . Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals
observed, be a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense. But where the well pleaded facts do not permit the court
to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged—but it has not “show[n]”—“that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 678-79 (citations omitted).
In his form complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, Plaintiff’s former
employer, discriminated against him by denying him reasonable accommodations for his
disability. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4). On March 11, 2026, the Court afforded Plaintiff
fourteen days to amend his complaint because his “allegations lack[ed] factual specificity
to enable the Court to review his pleading for viable claims upon which relief [could] be
Case 1:26-cv-00671-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/01/26 Page 2
of 3

3
granted.” (ECF No. 6, PageID.20). The Court further ordered that, “[i]n the event
Plaintiff fails to timely submit an amended complaint, the undersigned will recommend
that Plaintiff’s initial complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.” (ECF No. 6, PageID.21). Plaintiff’s deadline to amend his complaint
was March 25, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order,
and the undersigned recommends that this matter be dismissed for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted. For the same reasons the undersigned makes this recommendation, the
undersigned finds that an appeal of such would be frivolous and not in good
faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 1, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00671-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/01/26 Page 3
of 3