Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. l 5(a). Leave to amend should only be denied where there is bad faith on the part of the moving party, the amended would be futile , or granting leave would prejudice the non-moving party. See Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503 , 509 (4th Cir. 1986). Here, plaintiffs inclusion of more fabricated citations in the proposed amended complaint constitutes bad faith . The motion for leave to amend is also denied because amendment would be futile. "Futility is apparent if the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the applicable rules and accompanying standards[.]" Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc. , 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011). An amendment is therefore futile where the plaintiff fails to state a facially plausible claim, meaning that the facts pled "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Courts should be liberal in their construction of pro se complaints, but they should not go beyond deciphering the meaning of words written in the complaint to attempt to