GADSON v. MACON BIBB COUNTY GEORGIA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DARRYL GADSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-391 (MTT)
)
MACON-BIBB COUNTY, GEORGIA 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
__________________ 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Macon-Bibb County’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF 33. In an effort to afford Gadson, who is
proceeding pro se, adequate notice and time to respond to the defendant’s motion, the
following notice is given. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985). If
Gadson wishes to respond, he must do so no later than TWENTY-ONE DAYS from the
receipt of this Order.
If Gadson does not timely respond to the motion to dismiss, the Court may
dismiss his claims against the defendant. Under the procedures and policies of this
Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. Gadson may submit his
argument to this Court by filing a brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to
dismiss. Unless the Court has granted prior permission, any brief should not exceed
twenty pages. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. In addition, the Court advises Gadson that a response
brief is not the proper avenue for amending his complaint.1
1 The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[a] plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief
opposing summary judgment.” Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004)
Case 5:25-cv-00391-MTT Document 37 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 3

-2-
The Court evaluates a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim using
the following standard: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when “the
court [can] draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. “Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability
fall short of being facially plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337
(11th Cir. 2012) (citation modified).
At the motion to dismiss stage, “all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and
the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” FindWhat Inv. Grp. v. FindWhat.com., 658 F.3d 1282, 1296 (11th Cir. 2011)
(citation modified). But “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal
conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Wiersum v. U.S. Bank,
N.A., 785 F.3d 483, 485 (11th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The complaint must “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where there
(per curiam). The Circuit has, in unpublished opinions, applied the same rule when a pro se party seeks
to cure deficiencies in his brief opposing a motion to dismiss. Gladney v. Consumers Credit Union, No.
13-13959, 2024 WL 2797914 at*4 (11th Cir. May 31, 2024) (per curiam) (stating that the plaintiff “could
not cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint by asserting additional facts in his response to
[defendant’s] motion to dismiss”); Huls v. Llabona, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 n.5 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
(stating that “[b]ecause [plaintiff] raised this argument for the first time in his response to [defendant’s]
motion to dismiss, instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a), it was not properly raised below”).
Case 5:25-cv-00391-MTT Document 37 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 3

-3-
are dispositive issues of law, a court may dismiss a claim regardless of the alleged
facts. Patel v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 904 F.3d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018).
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of December, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00391-MTT Document 37 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 3