Meeks v. The Village At Germantown et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________________
HOLICE RYKE MEEKS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case 2:25-cv-02027-MSN-cgc
THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN,
CEO MIKE K. CRAFT,
METHODIST LeBONHEUR HEALTHCARE,
MHV1 LLC, and SUZANNE SMITH,
Registered Agent for MHV1 LLC,
Defendants.
REPORT ON THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN,
CEO MIKE K. CRAFT, AND METHODIST LeBONHEUR
HEALTHCARE’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court are Defendants The Village at Germantown (“The Village”) and Mike K.
Craft’s (“Craft”) Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) #50, #51) and Defendant Methodist
LeBonheur Healthcare’s (“Methodist”) Motion to Dismiss (D.E. #52). Pursuant to Administrative
Order 2013-05, the instant motions have been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for
Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that these
motions be DENIED.
I. 	Background
a. 	Plaintiff’s Pleadings
Plaintiff initiated this case on January 13, 2025 by filing a Complaint for Violation of Civil
Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Craft, The Village, and other individual defendants. (D.E.
#2). On the same date, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (D.E. #3),
Case 2:25-cv-02027-BCL-cgc Document 78 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

2
which the Court granted (D.E. #8). The Magistrate Judge further conducted a screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), at which time she recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed.
(D.E. #8).
On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (D.E.
#9) and a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (D.E. #10). 	On January 22, 2025, the
District Court entered an Order overruling the Plaintiff’s objection, adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and referring the Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint to the Magistrate Judge. (D.E. #11). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to
join an additional party. 	(D.E. #21). 	On July 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order
Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and the motion requesting to
join an additional party. (D.E. #29).
On August 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against The Village, Craft, and
Methodist. (D.E. #30). On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed another document entitled “Amended
Complaint,” which Plaintiff refers to therein as being a motion to add two new parties. (D.E. #34).
On October 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed yet another document entitled “First Amended Complaint and
Jury Demand” against The Village, Craft, Methodist, and two newly named defendants. 	(D.E.
#41). The Court will refer to the October 23, 2025 filing as the “Second Amended Complaint.”
b. 	Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
On November 7, 2025, The Village and Craft filed their Motion to Dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (D.E. #50, #51). The
Village and Craft argue that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed because
it fails to draw any connection between its claims that relate to an alleged unlawful foreclosure
Case 2:25-cv-02027-BCL-cgc Document 78 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

3
and any actions of The Village and/or Craft relating to those events. The Village and Craft further
request an award of “costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.”
On November 11, 2025, Methodist filed its Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. #52). Methodist’s
motion adopts and incorporates by reference all arguments set forth in The Village and Craft’s
Motion to Dismiss.
c. 	Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed Responses to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
(D.E. #67, #68). 	Plaintiff argues that Defendants mischaracterize his pleadings and that
Methodist’s motion seeking to rely on The Villages and Craft’s arguments is “legally insufficient.”
II. 	Legal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a claim may be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
In addressing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must construe the complaint in
the light most favorable to plaintiff and accept all well-pled factual allegations as true. League of
United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff can support
a claim “by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). This standard requires more than bare assertions of
legal conclusions. Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 2001). “[A]
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Any claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . .claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Case 2:25-cv-02027-BCL-cgc Document 78 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

4
Nonetheless, a complaint must contain sufficient facts “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face’” to survive a motion to dismiss. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “The plausibility
standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). 	“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A plaintiff with no
facts and “armed with nothing more than conclusions” cannot “unlock the doors of discovery.” Id.
at 678-79.
Pleadings and documents filed by pro se litigants are to be “liberally construed,” and a “pro
se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, “the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has
limits.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d
108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)). The basic pleading essentials are not abrogated in pro se cases. Wells
v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989) 	A pro se complaint must still “contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Barnett v.
Luttrell, 414 Fed. Appx. 784, 786 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal
quotations and emphasis omitted). 	District Courts “have no obligation to act as counsel or
paralegal” to pro se litigants. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). District Courts are also
not “required to create” a pro se litigant’s claim for him. Payne v. Secretary of Treasury, 73 Fed.
Appx. 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003).
Case 2:25-cv-02027-BCL-cgc Document 78 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID
<pageID>

5
III. 	Proposed Analysis & Conclusions of Law
As a threshold issue, the Court must address Plaintiff’s filing of two different amended
complaints. (D.E. #30, #41). While the Court permitted Plaintiff to amend the complaint (D.E.
#29), there was no leave to amend the complaint a second time. Further, there is no basis under
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for permitting Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint. Accordingly, the October 23, 2025 Second Amended Complaint is not properly before
the Court. Instead, the operative pleading in this case is the August 5, 2025 Amended Complaint.
The Court has considered whether the arguments in the instant Motions to Dismiss, which
are explicitly directed at the October 23, 2025 Second Amended Complaint, should be likewise
considered as arguments for dismissal of the August 5, 2025 Amended Complaint; however,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims against The Village,
Craft, and Methodist. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss do not address these claims.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that The Villages and Craft’s Motion to Dismiss and
Methodist’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.
Signed this 6th day of February 2026.
s/ Charmiane G. Claxton
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE SAID OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS
WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS 	MAY 	CONSTITUTE 	A 	WAIVER 	AND/OR
FORFEITURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS,
AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL.
Case 2:25-cv-02027-BCL-cgc Document 78 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID
<pageID>