NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a08 54n. 06 No. 11 -614 6 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

RANDALL T HOMPSON; FRED B ARNES; DON MCCOMM ON; PE T ER AL FONZO, Plaint if f s-Appe llants,

v

. CIT Y OF MEMPHIS; L ORENE E SSE X; DW AN GIL LIA M, in th eir of f icial capa city , Def end ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNITE D ST AT ES DIS T RICT COURT FOR T HE W EST ERN DIST RIC T OF T ENNESSE E

Before: ROGE RS and S TRA NCH, Circuit Judges ; PEA RSON, Dis trict Judge. *

BENITA Y. PEA RSON, District Judge. Plaint if f s Rand all T hom pson , Fred Barne s, Don McComm on, and Pet er Alf onzo (“Plaintif f s”) app eal the district court’s orde rs gr ant ing Def end ant Lore ne Essex’s mo tion to dism iss in her indi vid u a l c a pacity, and den y ing Plaint if f s’ secon d mo tion to sever partie s, and gr ant ing Def end ant City of Memp his ’s

mo tion to dism iss in this action alleging rev erse discrimina tion in mu ni c ip a l e m ploymen t und er the T enn essee Hum an Rig hts Act, T .C.A. § 4–2 1–1 01 et seq. (“THRA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

.

T he Hono rable Ben ita Y. Pe arson , Unite d S tate s District Judge f or th e North ern * District of

Ohio , sitting by designat ion.No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

Plaint if f s request tha t w e rev erse the district court’s orde rs and rema nd this case to the trial court. Beca use the mo tions to dism iss of Def end ant s Lore ne Essex (“Essex ”) and City of Memp his (“the City ”) and Plaint if f s’ secon d mo tion to sever w ere correctly decid ed,

w e a f f irm th e d istrict court’s jud gmen t. I. BA CKGROUND A

. Factual Back ground T he allegation s in the com plaint arise f rom an investig ation tha t Plaint if f s allege led to arbitrary discrimina tion and retaliat ion by Def end ant s. Plaint if f s, w ho are Cauca sian, are

em ployed by the City ’s Pub lic W orks Div ision. Com pl. at ¶ 9

. T hey held v arious positio ns cate goriz ed as ma nagem ent

. Plaint if f s alleged the y “have bee n consiste ntly den ied
prom otion s and disciplined by Plaint if f ’s (sic) w hile Af rican Am erican Ci t y of Memp his Pub lic W orks em ployees w ere prom ote d and not subje cted to such discipline. ” Com pl. at ¶ 10

. T hey f urthe r asserte d “Def end ant ’s (sic) have (i) f ailed to pay Cauca sian em ployees

on par w ith the pay of Af rican Am erican em ployees; (ii) f ailed to p ro m o t e Cauca sian

em ployees f airly ; (iii ) f ailed to ef f ectively enf orce proce dure s and policies proh ibiting race discrimina tion; and (iv ) retaliat ed against em ployee s wh o h ave prote sted Def end ant s’ discrimina tory policies, proce dure s and /or pat terns. ” Com pl. ¶ at 11

. Plaint if f s allege the y “and the class o f Ca u c asian em ployees at the City of Memp his have bee n treat ed dif f eren tly f rom similarly situat ed Af rican Am erican ma nagers” and “[b]a sed on the ir race,

em ployees such as Plaint if f s have bee n arbitrarily disciplined and den ied prom otion al
opp ortun ities an d o the r ben ef its of em ploymen t.” Com pl. a t ¶ 12

.

2No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

Plaint if f s asserte d “[o]n or abo ut Sep tem ber 18, 200 8, Plaint if f s’ (sic) w ere arbitrarily disciplined [ b y De f e n dan ts] f or alleged discrimina tion and misco ndu ct” and prior to tha t dat e, “Def end ant ’s (sic) subje cted Plaint if f s to hea rings and question ing a n d d e n ie d Plaint if f s’ coun sel prese nt (sic).” Com pl. at ¶¶ 13-1 4

. Plaint if f s allegedly “later learne d tha t this question ing w as used against the m in orde r to issue the discipline on Sep tem ber 18, 200 8.” Com pl. at ¶ 15

. P laintif f s claim “Def end ant s[’] selectio n of Plaint if f s f or arbitrary discipline w as int ent iona l and ba sed upo n P laintif f s’ race (Cau casian ).” Com pl. a t ¶ 16

. Mor eo v er , Pl ai nt i ffs asserted “Def end ant City of Memp his, has consiste ntly provided

a racially host ile w orking environme nt a n d h as not take n reme dial action s to resolve the racially host ile environme nt oth er tha n to discipline Plaint if f s f or f alse allegation s.” Com pl. at ¶ 17

. Pla in t if

f s claim “Def end ant s, have engaged in a sy stem ic policy of unla w f ul practice s of discrimina tion by creatin g a perv asive host ile env ironm ent based upo n race, color, or nat iona l origi n w ith respe ct to arbitrary discipline, gra d in g p ra c t ices and in the awarding of raises and prom otion s to the Plaint if f s and oth ers similarly situat ed in v iolation of the T enn essee Hum an Rig hts Act.” Com pl. a t ¶ 41 . P laintif f s also claim “Def end ant s have e n ga ge d in cond uct designed to den y Plaint if f s and oth er similarly situat ed (sic) ben ef its to w hich the y are ent itled in v iolation of the ir rig hts und er the 14 Amen dm ent of t h the United Sta tes Constitu tion to due proce ss and equal prote ction und er the law .” Com pl. at ¶ 43

. Finally , Plaint if

f s asserte d “Def end ant s retaliat ed against the Plaint if f [s] and oth ers similarly situat ed by creatin g a pervasiv e host ile environme nt in retaliat ion f or the Plaint if f ’s

3No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

(sic) com plaint s regarding t h e a rb itrary discipline and den ial of w orkplace opp ortun ities base d u pon race” in v iolation of the T HRA an d 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Com pl. a t ¶ 46

. In the ir prop osed individual am end ed com plaint s f or each plaint if f , Plaint if f s alleged discrimina tion w ith respe ct to the term s and cond itions of em ploymen t due to the plaint if f ’s

race (Caucasia n). Plaint if f s collectively pled tha t the y “[have] bee n subje cted to unf air and

une qual treat me nt bet w een [the m] and me mb ers of oth er races.” Propo sed Am d. Com pls. at ¶ 9. Similarly, Plaint if f s alleged t h a t t h ey w ere “arbitrarily disciplined f or alleged discrimina tion and misco ndu ct.” T hom pson Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶ 12 ; Barne s Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶ 1 2 ; Alf onso Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶ 10 ; McComm on Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶ 10

. Plaint if f s alleged t h a t t h e y we re den ied pay raises tha t

w ere giv en to oth er s im il a rl y situat ed, non -Caucasia n em ployees. T hom pson Propo sed A m d

. Co m p l. at ¶¶ 10-1 1 ; Barne s Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶¶ 10-1 1 ; McComm on Propo sed Am d. Co mp l. at ¶¶ 1 9-20

. Plaint if f s also claime d tha t the City ’s investig ation of the Plaint if f s w as not “f air and unb iased ” beca use the City “f ailed to include all em ployees includin g tho se w ho had bee n transf erred t o o the r dep artm ent s during the period cov ered i n the allegations against t he Plaint if f [s].” T hom pson Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶¶ 14-1 5 ; Ba r ne s Pr op osed Am d. Com pl. at ¶¶ 15-1 6 ; Alf onso Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶¶ 11-1 2 ; McCo mm on Propo sed Am d. Com pl. at ¶ ¶ 1 1 -1 2

. T he prop osed individual am end ed com plaint s also add ed new backgroun d f acts regarding how, af ter Plaint if

f s w ere suspe nde d by the City , the y app eale d the ir suspe nsion to the C iv il Service Com mission w hich o rdered reinsta tem ent , th e sta te

4No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

court den ied the City ’s app eal f or relief f rom the Civ il Service decision , and Plaint if f s w ere reinsta ted

. B. Proce dural His tory Plaint if f s f iled a put ative class action com plaint ag ainst the C ity , Essex (the City ’s 1 f orme r Director of Hum an Resou rces), and Dw an Gilliam (the City ’s Director of Pub lic W orks) in the Chan cery Court of She lby Coun ty, T enn essee ( R. 1-1 ). Def end ant s the n

remo v ed the case to the U.S. District Court f or th e W este rn District of T enn essee ba sed

on f ede ral question jurisdiction ( R. 1 ). T he com plaint alleged (1) discrimina tion und er the T HRA; (2) discrimina tion und er 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 , claimin g a v iolation of the ir Fourte ent h Am end me nt due proce ss and equal prote ction rig hts; (3) retaliat ion und er the T HRA; and (4) retaliat ion u nde r § 1 983

. T he case w as set f or a sched uling conf eren ce. Prior to the conf eren ce, coun sel f or the partie s agreed to a sched ule tha t w as app rov ed by the district court. T h e trial court ent ered a sched uling orde r ( R. 7 ) tha t ado pte d Februa ry 17, 201 0 as the dat e f or am end ing the plea dings. Essex and Gilliam f iled sepa rate mo tions to dism iss. R. 22 and 31

. A hea ring w as held bef ore the district judge on June 22, 201 0. On June 29, 201 0 an o rd er dism issing

On No v em ber 1 0, 2 010 , th e d istrict court grant ed the City ’s uno ppo sed mo tion 1 to d ismiss Pla intif

f s’ class act ion cla ims. See Orde r ( R. 37 ). 5No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

Essex and Gilliam w as ent ered by the trial court. R. 34

. W ith regard to Essex, the district 2
court state d: “[D]iscriminatio n i s no t a plau sible conclu sion”of Plaint if f s’ f actu al allegation s. [ Ashcrof t v. Iqb al , 556 U.S. 662 , 682 (200 9)]. Nor is retaliat ion. Accordin gly , Plaint if f s have not dem onst ra t e d ent itlem ent to relief und er the T HRA or Sect ion 198 3. Add itiona lly , . . . Plaint if f s have neglecte d to allege suf f icient f act s to imp ose individual liability on Def end ant Essex und er the T HRA or Sect ion 1 983

. R. 34 at 5-6

. I n the altern ative, the trial court f oun d Essex w as ent itled to qualif ied imm unity f or Plain tif

f s’ discrimina tion claim und er § 1 983

. R. 34 at 10

. In t he June 29 , 20 10 orde r, the trial cou rt also den ied P laintif f s’ request t o a me nd the ir comp laint f or three reaso ns. First, Plaint if f s had not prop erly mo v ed to am end the 3

com plaint beca use the request w as cont aine d w ithin the ir m otion respo nse and no t f iled
sepa rately as a n a p p ro p ria tely supp orted mo tion. Seco nd, the request w as unt ime ly

. T hird, t he prop osed am end me nts would b e f utile. R. 34 at 11-1 3

. On Februa ry 18, 201 1, the City f iled a mo tion to dism iss ( R. 42 ). In respo nse to the

mo tion, Plaint if

f s requeste d tha t the district court sever P laintif f s’ cases and tha t the y be allowed to f ile individual com plaint s. R. 45

. T his w as, in ef f ect, a request tha t Plaint if f s be allowed to f ile severed am end ed com plaint s. On April 7, 201 1, t he district cou rt en tered

an orde r tha t provided: “A f a c ia l e xam inatio n of Plaint if f s’ com plaint clearly shows tha t

Plaint if f s ha v e n ot a ppe aled the district co urt’s de cision d ismissing the ir claims 2 against G illiam. App ellant s Br. a t 13

. T he request was set f orth in Pla intif f s’ respo nse to E ssex’s motio n to dism iss ( 3 R. 26 at 4 an d 5 ). Acco rding to t he district cou rt, Plain tif f s’ coun sel also m ade a sim ilar request d uring oral argum ent

. R. 34 at 11

. 6No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

Plaint if f s set f orth only a series of conclu sory allegation s tha t f all short of the Two m bly requireme nt.” R. 47 at 1

. T he trial court held the City ’s mo tion in abe y ance , and allowed Plaint if f s 20 days to f ile a mo tion to am end and sever accom pan ied by com plaint s me eting the Bell Atlan tic Corp. v. Two m bly , 550 U.S. 5 44, 555 (200 7) plea ding stan dard s. R. 47 at 2

. On April 27, 2 0 11, Plaint if f s f iled a mo tion to sever partie s ( R. 48 ). Plaint if f s atta ched copie s of the ir prop osed individual com plaint s. On June 6, 201 1, the district court ent ered an orde r ( R. 50 ) den y ing the mo tion w ithou t prejud ice beca use the prop osed individual com plaint s add ed new claims beyond the claims raised in the origi nal com plaint

. T he orde r allowed Plaint if f s 10 days to ref ile the ir mo tion to sever w ith individual com plaint s tha t com plied w ith th e A pril 7, 2 011 orde r. R. 50 at 3

. On Jun e 1 6, 201 1, Plaint if f s f iled a secon d mo tion to sever partie s to allege individual claims of discrimina tion so the y could pursu e the ir claims s epa rately. R. 51

. Plaint if f s again atta ched a copy of the ir prop osed individual am end ed com plaint s f or each plaint if f . R. 51-2 , 51-3 , 51-4 , an d 51-5

. A hea ring was held bef ore a ma gistr ate judge. 4 On July 22, 201 1, the ma gistr ate judge ent ered an orde r den y ing Plaint if f s’ secon d mo tion to sever partie s and a repo rt recom me ndin g tha t the City ’s mo tion to dism iss be gr ant ed. R. 55 . T he orde r state d: T he court f inds tha t w hile the f our prop osed Am end ed Com plaint s add mo re det ails abo ut the f actu al backgroun d of the case, the Com plaint s still do not c o n t ain suf

f icient f actu al allegation s to plau sibly supp ort claims of ra c ia l

W het her t he individual pla intif f s sho uld b e se v ered is no t at issue. 4 7No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

discrimina tion and retaliat ion.

. . [T ]he allegation s in the prop osed Severed Am end e d Com plaint s are not ma terially dif f eren t f rom the allegation s cont aine d in the origi nal Com plaint tha t the district judge opin ed did not me et the T w om bly stan dard

. Any add it io n a l f acts cont aine d in the Severed Am end ed Com plaint s are, at best , con clusory. R. 55 at 9-10

. T he ma gistr ate judge f oun d tha t the mo tion to sever was really a mo tion 5
t o a m e nd by restat ing conclu sory allegation s w hich f all short of the Two m bly plea ding stan dard s. R. 55 at 3-4; 11

. He also f oun d tha t “Plaintif f s’ am end me nt w ould b e f u t ile beca use the prop osed Am e n d e d Co mp laints f ail to state a claim und er Fed. R. Civ

. P. 12(b )(6).” R. 55 at 4

. Over Plaint if

f s’ obje ction, the district court ado pte d the ma gistr ate judge’s repo rt and

recom me nda tion ( R. 57 ) and dism issed the rema inde r of the case ( R. 58 ). T he trial court f oun d tha t “sev eran ce w ould be a nullity and the com plaint w ould be def icient as to v iable claims und er app licable law .” R. 57 at 1

. Add itiona lly , the trial court f oun d tha t “Plaintif f s’

com pla in t is me rely a restat em ent of Plaint if f s’ conclu sory allegation s coup led w ith a f ormu laic r ecitat ion of the statu tory elem ent s [,w hich] is insuf f icient to mee t the thresho ld Rule 1 2(b)6) sta nda rd.” R. 57 at 1 . P laintif f s’ time ly ap pea l f ollowed. II. DISCUSSIO N A

. Standards of Rev iew W e rev iew a district court’s gr a n t of a mo tion to dism iss de novo

. Ped reira v. Ky. Bap tist Hom es for Children, Inc. , 579 F.3d 722 , 727 (6th Cir. 200 9)

. W e mu st const rue the

Accordin g to th e d istrict court, Plaint if f s’ coun sel con cede d a t th e h earing th at 5 the allegation s in th e p ropo sed individual am end ed com plaint s are essen tially the sam e as th e a llegations co nta ined in th e o rig inal co mp laint. R. 55 at 10

. 8No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

com plaint in the lig ht mo st f avorable to the plaint if f and accep t all allegation s as true. See Harbin– Bey v. Rutte r

, 420 F.3d 571 , 575 (6th Cir. 200 5)

. “Specif ic f acts are not nece ssary ; the state me nt nee d only giv e the def end ant f air n o tice of w hat the

. . . claim is and the
gr oun ds upo n w hich it rests.” E ri c k s o n v. Pardu s , 551 U.S. 89, 93 (200 7) (interna l quotat ion ma rks om itted ) (q uot ing Two m bly , 550 U.S. at 555 ). Ho we ve r, “[f ]actu al allegation s mu st be eno ugh to ra ise a rig ht to relief abo v e the specu lative level” and to “state a cla im t o relief

tha t is pla usible on its f ace. ” Two m bly , 55 0 U.S . at 55 5, 5 70

. Gen erally , w e rev iew the den ial of a mo tion to am end und er the abu se of discretion stan dard , “unless the mo tion w as den ied beca use the am end ed plea ding w ould not

w ithsta nd a mo tion to dism iss, in w hich case the stan dard of re vie w is de novo .” Tota l Ben efits Plan ning Age ncy, Inc. v. Ant hem Blue Cross & Blue Shie ld , 552 F

. 3 d 4 3 0, 437 (6th Cir. 200 8)

. B. The City ’s Motion to Dismis s Havi ng caref ully consid ered the record, as w ell as Pl ai nt i ffs’ ar g um en ts, w e conclu de tha t Plaint if

f s have advance d no argume nts on app eal tha t wo uld me rit rev ersing the district cou rt’s dismissa l of the com plaint against the City

. 6
A cause of action f ails to state a claim upo n w hich relief ma y be gr ant ed w hen it lacks “plausib ility in th[e ] com plaint .” Two m bly , 550 U.S. at 564

. A plea ding mu st cont ain

a “short and plain state me nt of the claim showing tha t the p le a d e r is ent itled to relief .”

T he record o n a ppe al con tains no transcript of the he aring held be f ore t he 6 ma gistr ate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 75 3(f ) ; Fed. R. Ap p. P . 10 (b)

. 9No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

Iqb al , 556 U.S. at 677 -78 (200 9) (q uot ing Fed. R. Civ

. P. 8(a)(2) ). Plaint if f is not required to include det ailed f actu al allegation s, but mu st provide m o re tha n “an una dorn ed, the -def end ant -unlawfu lly

- ha r me d- me accusation .” Id. at 678

. A plea ding tha t of f ers “labels and conclu sions” or “a f ormu laic recitatio n of the elem ent s of a cause of action w ill not do. ” Two m bly , 550 U.S. at 555

. Nor doe s a com plaint suf f ice if it ten ders “nake d assertio n[s]” devoid of “f urthe r f actu al enh ance me nt.” Id. at 557

. I t m u s t c ont ain suf f icient f actu al

ma tter, accep ted as true, to “state a claim to relief tha t is plau sible on its f ace. ” Id. at 570

. “A claim has f acial plau sibility w hen the plaint if f plea ds f actu al cont ent tha t allows the court to draw the reaso nab le inf eren ce tha t the def end ant is liable f or the misco ndu ct alleged.” Iqb al , 556 U.S. at 678

. T he plau sibility stan dard is not akin to a “proba bility requireme nt,” but it asks f or mo re tha n a shee r p o s s ib il it y tha t a def end ant has acte d unla w f ully

. Two m bly , 550 U.S. at 556

. W here a com plain t p le a ds f acts tha t are “mere ly consiste nt

w ith” a def end ant ’s liability , it “stops short of the line bet w een possib ility and plau sibility of ‘entitle me nt t o relief .’” Id. at 557 (bracket s om itted ). Plaint if f s’ com plaint do es n ot sa tisf y the se sta nda rds. C. Ess ex’ s Motion to Dismis s Plaint if f s sum ma rily argue tha t the district court shou ld have allowed leave to am end to consid er add itiona l f acts out side the com plaint w ith regard to the T HRA claims against Essex. App ellant s Br. at 13

. A c a re f ul rev iew of Plaint if f s’ brief on app eal, howev er,

10No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

rev eals tha t the y have f ailed to iden tif y w hy the y are ent itled to relief against Essex und er the T HRA an d 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. 7 Upon our own de novo rev iew , w e f ind tha t Plaint if f s have f ailed t o state a claim against Essex upo n w hich relief can be gr ant ed. T he district court state d tha t Plaint if f s’

coun sel adm itted at oral argume nt tha t Essex’s alleged action s w ere take n w hile acting in her capa city as Director of Hum an Resou rces. R. 34 at 7 and 8

. T here f ore, Essex cann ot 8 be individually liab le u n d er the T HRA und er an accom plice liability the ory

. W elles v. Chatt ano oga Police Dep’ t. , No. 1:0 7-CV-71, 200 7 W L 312 082 3, at *4 (E.D. T enn

. Oct. 23, 200 7) (f inding tha t the re is no individual liability und er the T HRA f or the alleged action s of

a f orme r chief of police w here the re is no indicat ion his action s w ere out side the scope of his em ploymen t as chief ); Rhea v. Dollar Tree Sto res, Inc. , 395 F. Sup p. 2d 696 , 706 (W .D. T enn

. 200 5) (g rantin g m otion to dism iss claim f or individual liability u nde r T HRA against

re gi o n a l ma nager w here em ployees did not allege tha t regional ma nager eithe r aide d , abe tted , incited , com pelled or com ma nde d an em ployer to engage in a discrimina tory act or pract ice).

Plaint if f s ha v e waiv ed app eal o f the de cision o f

the district co urt wi th re gard to 7 the § 1 983 claim s against Essex beca use the y ha v e f ailed to ra ise argum ent s in opp osition on ap pea l. See Radva nsky v. City of O lm sted Falls , 39 5 F.3 d 2 91, 31 1 (6t h Cir. 200 5) (‘‘[A pa rty ’s] f ailure t o raise an argume nt in his a ppe llate b rief con stitute s a w aiver of the argume nt o n a ppe al.’’). T he sam e ca n b e sa id f or th e claim against the City f or discrimin ation un der 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , claim ing a violation o f Plain tif f s’ Fourte ent h A me ndm ent equal p rotect ion rights. How ever, the re is no tran script in t he record o n a ppe al of the he aring 8 culm inatin g in the Jun e 2 9, 2 010 cou rt orde r gr ant ing Essex’s motio n to dism iss in he r individual cap acity. 11No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

D. Pla intiffs’ Requests for Leav e to A mend and Sec ond Motion to Sev er Partie s Plaint if f s have not esta blished tha t the district court shou ld have gr ant ed the m leave to am end the com plaint

. Plaint if f s did not prop erly seek leave to am end to consid er add itiona l f acts out side the com plaint w ith regard to the T HRA claims against Essex. W e disf avor such bare requests and the y are not a subst itute f or a p ro perly f iled mo tion f or leave to f ile an am end ed com plaint

. Beg ala v. PNC Ban k, Ohio, N.A. , 214 F.3d 776 , 784 (6th Cir. 200 0) ; see also Lou isiana Sch. Em p. Ret. Sys. v. Ernst & You ng, LLP , 622 F.3d 471 , 48 6 (6t h Cir. 20 10)

. T he request to am end the com plaint w ith regard to the T HRA claims against Essex

w as also unt ime ly

. T he district court ent ered a sched uling orde r ( R. 7 ) tha t ado pte d Februa ry 17, 201 0 as the dat e f or am end ing t he plea dings. Plaint if f s ’ request regarding Essex w as not ma de unt il April 19, 201 0, at the earliest. Accordin g to Fed. R. Civ

. P. 16(b )(4) , w here the Court has ent ered a sched uling orde r tha t limits the time to am end the plea dings, th e s c h e dule “may be mo dif ied only f or good cause and w ith the judge’s

conse nt.” See Com m erce Ben efits Grp., Inc. v. McKesson Corp. , 326 F. App ’x

. 369 , 376 (6th Cir. 200 9) (holdin g the district court did not abu se its discretion in den y ing mo tions to

am end ). Finally , t h e p ropo sed am end me nts w ould be f utile. Plaint if f s state d in the ir Respo nse to Essex’s Motion to Dismiss ( R. 26 ) tha t they w ished to am end the com plaint to include allegation s tha t “Essex enco uraged the City of Memp his to term inate d (sic) the ir

e m ploymen t or discipline Plaint if f s and /or prevent City of Memp his f rom taking act io n t o

12No. 11-6146 , Thompson, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.

prevent discrimina tion in the w orkplace .” R. 26 at 4

. W e agree w ith the district court tha t the se allegation s are me rely conclu sions not supp orted by w ell-pled f actu al allegation s and the y w ould not w ithsta nd a Rule 12(b )(6) mo tion t o d is m is s. See Rose v. Hartford Un d erw riters Ins. Co. , 203 F.3d 417 , 420 (6th Cir. 200 0) (holdin g tha t a prop os e d

am end me nt is f utile if the com plaint , as am end ed, w ould not w ithsta nd a mo tion to dism iss f or f ailure to state a claim). T he district court thu s did not err in den y ing Plaint if f s' request to a me nd the com plaint w ith regard t o th e T HRA claims against E ssex. T he district court also did not err in den y ing Plaint if f s' secon d mo tion to sever partie s

w ith regard to the claims against the City

. Contra ry to Plaint if f s’ argume nt ( App ellant s Br. at 10 ), the allegation s of Plaint if f s’ prop osed severed am end ed com plaint s f ail to me et the plea ding requireme nts of Two m bly

. “W hen a prop osed am end ed com plaint doe s not state

a cause of action , a mo tion to am end is prop erly den ied.” Matth ew s v. Jone s , 3 5 F.3d 104 6, 105 0 (6th Cir. 199 4) (citing Neighb orho od Dev. Corp. v. Adviso ry Coun cil on Historic Preserva tion , 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6th Cir. 198 0) ). T here f ore, am end me nt of the com plaint

w ould ha v e b een f utile. III. CONCLUSION For the se rea sons, w e a f f irm th e jud gmen t of

the district co urt.

13