CL D- 23 9 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

___________ No. 10- 1947

___________ GR EG ORY T . RE DM ON D, Appe l l ant

v. SE PT A

____________________________________ On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e E astern D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci v. No. 09- c v- 05075) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble Norm a L. Shapiro

____________________________________ S ub m ittedf

o r P o ssib le S u mm ary

A ctio n P u rsu an t to T h irdC ircu it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6

Jul y 9, 2010 B ef o re: B A R RY , F IS H E R

an dG R E E N A WA Y , JR ., C ircu it Ju d g es. ( Fi l e d: Augus t

4, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ PER CURI AM. Gr e gory T. Re dm ond a

ppe a l s the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s or de r

gr ant i ng de fe ndant SEPTA’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s hi s pr o s e am e nde d c om pl a i nt . Re dm ond a l l e ge d tha t on February 20 , 200 9, he was at a

SE PT A b us te rm inal in Ph il adel ph ia , Pennsylvania , when2

h e ask eda S E P T A b o x atten d an t to “b u zz” h im th ro u g h a g ate. R ed m o n dso u g h t to u se the ga t e be c aus e he wa s c arryi ng abi g ba g and “ r e c ove r i ng fr om ac ar a c c i de nt . ” The atte nd ant thric e r efused Redm on d’s r equest s t o u se the gat e and inst ruct ed him

to use a t urns t i l e . Re dm ond tr i e d the t urns t i l e , but

i t c aus e d hi m

pa i n. He s ought

a s s i s t anc e fr om a S E P T A p o lice o f

f icer, af ter w h ich th e atten d an t o p en edth e g ate. B asedo n th ese e ve nt s , Re dm ond c l a i m e d tha t SEPTA vi ol a t e d hi s r i ght t o us e publ i c tr ans port a t i on unde r Ti t l e VI of the Ci vi l Ri ght s Ac t of 1964 and the Am e r i c ans wi th Di s abi l i t i e s Ac t of 1990 ( “ ADA” ) . He s ought $800, 000 i n dam a ge s for s uffe r i ng “ m a s s i ve pa i n” t o hi s s i de an db ack , an da “set b ack ” in h is reco v ery f ro m th e earlier car accid en t. S E P T A m o v edto d ism iss, arg u in g , in ter alia, th at R ed m o n df ailedto state a claim up o n w h ich relief

can b e g ran ted . T h e D istrict C o u rt g ran tedth e m o tio n . L ib erally c ons tr ui ng the pr o s e a m e nde d c om pl a i nt a s s e e ki ng r e l i e f unde r

the ADA and Se c t i on 5 0 4 o f th e R eh ab ilitatio n A ct, th e D istrict C o u rt co n clu d edth at R ed m o n d ’s claim s f ail be c aus e ( i ) hi s a l l e ga t i ons do not s ugge s t tha t he i s aqua l i fi e d i ndi vi dua l wi th a d isab ility , (ii) th ere is n o alleg atio n th at serv ices o r b en ef its w ere in ten tio n ally

w ith h eld or that Redm on d w as tr eate d d ifferent ly beca use of a disa

bili ty , and (i ii ) Redm on d h as not a l l e ge d fa c t s s upport i ng an i nfe r e nc e tha t the SEPTA a tt e ndant

a c t e d i nt e nt i ona l l y , or a c t e d by r e a s on of Re dm ond’ s a l l e ge d di s abi l i ty , the r e by pr e c l udi ng any

awar d of c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s . The Di s tr i c t

Court r e fus e d l e ave t o am e nd the c om pl a i nt3

b ecau se it co n clu d edth at an y am en d m en t w o u ldn o t cu re th e d ef ects th at ledto d ism issal. R ed m o n dtim ely f iledth is ap p eal. W e ha ve a

ppe l l a t e jur i s di c t i on unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1291. “ W e e xe r c i s e de novo rev iew o f a D istrict C o u rt’s d ism issal u n d er Ru le 1 2 (b )(6 ) f o r a f ailu re to state a claim up o n w h ich relief

m ay b e g ran ted .” M ay er v . B elich ick , 6 0 5 F .3 d2 2 3 (3 dC ir. 2 0 1 0 ). “We m u st accep t all f

actu al alleg atio n s in th e co m p lain t as tru e, co n stru e th e co m p lain t in the l i ght fa vor abl e t o the pl a i nt i ff, and ul t i m a t e l y de t e rm i ne whe the r

pl a i nt i ff m ay

be e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f unde r

any r e a s onabl e r e a di ng of the c om pl a i nt . ” I d. B ecau se th is ap p eal p resen ts n o sub stan tial qu estio n , w e w ill su mm ary af f irm . Se e 3d Ci r . L. A. R. 24. 7, I . O. P. Ch. 10. 6. As the Di s tr i c t Court ful l y e xpl a i ne d, Redm on d’s a ll egat ions sugg es t no inf er ence that

he has a qu al ifying “disa

bili ty” und er th e law . H is alleg atio n s th at h e w as reco v erin g f ro m a car accid en t an dsu f

f eredp ain in hi s s i de and ba c k ar e i ns uffi c i e nt . Se e , e . g. , Ri ne hi m e r v. Ce m c ol i ft , 292 F. 3d 375, 381 (3d C ir . 200 2); McDon al d v . Pennsylvania , 62 F .3d 9 2, 96 (3d C ir . 199 5). Further , there is no al le gati on or inference re as on ably drawn that SEP TA or it s a gents dis cr im inat ed ag ain st R ed m o n d , actedin ten tio n ally , o r actedb y reaso n o f an y alleg edd isab ility . A cco rd in g ly , th e am en d edco m p lain t w as p ro p erly

d ism issed . In ad d itio n , leav e to a m e nd wa s pr ope r l y

de ni e d i n l i ght

of “ the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s r e a s one d e xam i na t i on of [Re dm ond’ s ] c l a i m s , whi c h de m ons tr a t e s the i r fut i l i ty . ” J one s v. ABN AMRO Mort g. Grou p, Inc. , 606 F.3d 11 9 (3d Cir. 20 10 ).4

Fo r the s e r e a s on s , andfo r

the r e a s on s fu l l y

e xp l a i ne d b y

the Di s tr i c t

Co ur t , we will affirm

the order dism is si ng the am ended com plai nt with prejud ic e. Redm on d’s m ot i on for

a ppoi ntm e nt

of c ouns e l i s de ni e d.