ÿWPC? kèÁAm2&ºZ¢¹ù¿7˜Ed€¸Ô15©:˜}ô,èÕ1‰:G©Kuj±Ê¥z ]Qò6ÙL¦4wù¸üið+w¿ûÒ4`AeTMö‹§‚L‹°ù’Ro8ŽBƒ\fQC]™ »ˆþ»MCõ—(¤¸É…‡ýtÜ–Ÿ—@èþˆGWJ`RuÝGÉÍØŸEÙÒèøv¨eÌÑÑ€¾TÑÔ_Ôà@m m ìàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@hh%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÌßx€Y_B2.jzâý”`  `€€@ÿEª` 8ttxPâˆð ” xßÌÌSTEVEN€COBB,à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à h àò òà À à)€€Lauderdale€Circuit€No.€50501Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌVS.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9811„CV„00308Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌCHARLES€WILSON,€et€al,à h àà À à)Ð è 8  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àà ` àó óDefendants/Appellees.à À àò ò)ó óÐ À  ÐÌÌà@ëëìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€LAUDERDALE€COUNTYˆÌà@SS ìàAT€RIPLEY,€TENNESSEEˆÌà@† † ìàTHE€HONORABLE€JOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€III,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òSTEVEN€COBB,€pro€seó óÐ Zª ÐÔ_ÔHenningÔ_Ô,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ Þ . ÐAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌSolicitor€GeneralÌELENA€J.€Ô_ÔXOINISÔ_ÔÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCivil€Rights€and€Claims€DivisionÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÐ R'¢"& ÐAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ ‚.Ò). ÐÌÌÌÌó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òALAN€E.€Ô_ÔHIGHERSÔ_Ô,€J.Ð 3n.3 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€Ô_ÔLILLARDÔ_Ô,€J.ó óà h àÐ ~:Î5; ÐÓÓà  àÐ j;º6< ÐÑ>Ñâ âÑ8€ÜüXXdæXXdì8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔSteven€Cobb€appeals€from€the€dismissal€of€his€òòpro€seóó€complaint€against€Charles€Wilson,Ð ° ÐEvelyn€Scallions,€and€Steve€Vaughn.€€The€complaint,€filed€pursuant€to€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983,Ð |Ì Ðalleged€violations€of€Cobbððs€rights€under€the€First,€Eighth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€United€States€Constitution.Ð  d ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€òòFacts€and€Procedural€Historyóóó óÐ ¬ ü  ÐÓ  Óà  à€Steven€Cobb€(or€ð ðAppellantðð)€was,€at€all€times€relevant,€an€inmate€at€the€WestÐ xÈ  ÐTennessee€High€Security€Facility€€(ð ðWTHSFðð)€in€Henning,€Tennessee.€€Appellees€CharlesÐ D”  ÐWilson,€Evelyn€Scallions,€and€Steve€Vaughn€were€employed€by€the€TennesseeÐ ` ÐDepartment€of€Correction€at€WTHSF.€Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àSteven€Cobb€worked€as€a€commercial€cleaner€(òòi.eóó.,€custodian)€at€WTHSF€fromÐ tÄ ÐOctober€11,€1996€through€February€4,€1998.€€Beginning€in€October€of€1997,€Cobb€allegesÐ @ Ðthat€he€was€made€to€work€on€his€ð ðoffðð€days.€€He€also€alleged€that€he€was€not€being€properlyÐ  \ Ðpaid€for€the€time€he€did€work.€€As€a€result,€he€filed€a€grievance€with€prison€officials€assertingÐ Ø( Ðthat€he€had€been€deprived€of€wages€and€days€off.€€Cobb€also€requested€a€job€change.€€Ð ¤ô ÐAllegedly,€the€filing€of€the€grievance€began€the€sequence€of€events€which€are€the€subjectÐ p!À  Ðof€Cobbððs€complaint.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àOn€December€30,€1997,€Cobb€received€a€job€placement€form€indicating€that€he€wasÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€report€to€Moral€Recognition€Therapy€(ð ðMRTðð).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€After€reporting€to€the€MRT€class€on€theÐ  (ð#( Ðmorning€of€December€31,€Cobb€was€ordered€back€to€the€unit€to€see€appellee€CharlesÐ l*¼%* ÐWilson.€€Wilson€allegedly€instructed€Cobb€to€clean€the€showers€and€provided€appellant€withÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcomet€cleanser,€floor€stripper,€and€a€water€hose.€€Cobb€also€claims€he€was€givenÐ .T). Ðð ðadditional€suppliesðð€by€appellee€Evelyn€Scallions.€€According€to€Cobb,€he€was€not€givenÐ Ð/ +0 Ðany€instructions€or€training€regarding€the€ð ðuse€of€the€hazardous€chemicals€involved.ðð€€CobbÐ œ1ì,2 Ðbegan€to€clean€the€shower€by€applying€the€cleanser€and€stripper€to€the€floor€and€sprayingÐ h3¸.4 Ðthe€floor€with€water.€€Appellee€Steve€Vaughn€then€instructed€Cobb€to€clean€the€floor€of€theÐ 45„06 Ðshower€with€a€scrub€brush.€€Cobb€claims€he€was€injured€when€the€water/cleaning€solutionÐ 7P28 Ðmixture€splashed€into€his€right€eye.€€Cobb€informed€Evelyn€Scallions€of€his€injury,€and€Ms.Ð ° ÐScallions€wrote€him€a€pass€to€the€infirmary€where€medical€personnel€flushed€out€CobbððsÐ |Ì Ðright€eye€with€water.€€€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àCobb€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€complaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Lauderdale€County€alleging€thatÐ à 0 Ðthe€actions€of€the€appellees€violated€his€rights€under€First,€Eighth,€and€FourteenthÐ ¬ ü  ÐAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€1,€ðð€8,€of€the€TennesseeÐ xÈ  ÐConstitution.€€According€to€the€complaint,€the€facts€alleged€constituted€ð ðdisparate€in€[sic]Ð D”  Ðtreatment,€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€retaliation,€[and]€arbitrary€and€capriciousÐ ` Ðdecisions€.€.€.ðð€€Essentially,€Cobbððs€complaint€was€premised€on€the€injury€to€his€eye€and€hisÐ Ü, Ðclaim€that€the€appelleesðð€actions€were€taken€in€retaliation€for€Cobb€pursuing€his€grievances.€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€defendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€claim€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ tÄ ÐProcedure€12.02(6)€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted.€€TheÐ @ Ðdefendants€also€filed€a€motion€to€stay€discovery€pending€a€ruling€on€the€motion€to€dismiss.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р \ ÐThe€motion€to€dismiss€was€granted€by€the€circuit€court€and€this€appeal€followed.€€OnÐ Ø( Ðappeal,€Cobb€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€complaint€since€he€shouldÐ ¤ô Ðhave€been€allowed€to€amend€his€factual€allegations.€€Also,€Cobb€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÐ p!À  Ðerred€by€not€granting€his€request€for€production€of€documents.׃N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð <#Œ" Ðà  àÌÓ  Óò òòòLaw€and€Analysisóóó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓ  Óà  à¹Ó  ÓòòòòMotion€for€Production€of€DocumentsóóóóÐ l*¼%* ÐÓ  Óà  àAppellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€dismissed€his€claim€in€light€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€pending€motion€for€production€of€documents.€€He€asserts€that€the€production€of€theseÐ .T). Ðdocuments€was€required€to€ð ðaccurately€amend€his€allegations.ðð€Ð Ð/ +0 Їà  àThis€court€previously,€in€dealing€with€a€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim,Ð ° Ðhas€stated€that€T.C.A.€ðð€41„21„804(a)€requires€a€trial€court€to€suspend€all€discovery€uponÐ |Ì Ðthe€filing€of€a€motion€to€dismiss€a€claim€as€frivolous.€€òòSweatt€v.€Campbellóó,€1999€WL€95978Ð H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€W.S.,€February€25,€1999).€€Section€41„21„804€sets€forth€three€factors€forÐ  d Ðcourts€to€consider€in€determining€whether€a€claim€is€frivolous.€€These€factors€are:€ð ð(1)Ð à 0 Ðwhether€the€claim€has€a€chance€of€success;€(2)€whether€the€claim€has€a€basis€in€law€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðin€fact;€and€(3)€whether€the€claim€is€substantially€similar€to€a€previous€claim€filed€by€theÐ xÈ  Ðinmate€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„804(b)(1997).€€In€the€present€case,€defendantððsÐ D”  Ðmotion€to€dismiss€was€based,€in€part,€upon€the€claim€that€Cobbððs€complaint€had€no€basisÐ ` Ðin€law€and€in€fact.€€The€motion€to€dismiss€was,€therefore,€analogous€to€a€claim€that€the€caseÐ Ü, Ðwas€frivolous.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€such,€we€find€that€discovery€was€suspended€pending€a€decision€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðmotion€to€dismiss.€òòòòÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àóóóóAdditionally,€we€disagree€with€appellantððs€argument€that€he€was€entitled€to€certainÐ  \ Ðdocuments€in€order€to€support€his€factual€allegations.€€In€this€regard,€appellantÐ Ø( Ðmisconstrues€the€nature€of€a€motion€to€dismiss€under€rule€12.02(6).€€The€appellantððsÐ ¤ô Ðdiscovery€request€related€to€any€documents€concerning€the€use€of€certain€cleaningÐ p!À  Ðmaterials,€safety€procedures€for€the€use€of€such€materials,€and€training€he€had€receivedÐ <#Œ" Ðin€the€use€of€said€cleaning€materials.€€While€this€information€might€be€of€evidentiary€value,Ð %X $ Ðsuch€discovery€has€no€effect€on€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€which€is€the€sole€focus€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ða€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðthis€case€in€spite€of€the€pending€motion€for€production€of€documents.òòòòÐ l*¼%* ÐÌÓ  ÓÌEvelyn€Scallions€and€Steve€VaughnÐ Ð/ +0 ÐÓ  Óà  àóóóóA€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€whichÐ œ1ì,2 Ðrelief€can€be€granted€tests€only€the€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€not€the€strength€of€aÐ h3¸.4 Ðplaintiff's€proof€as€does,€for€example,€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€òòMerriman€v.€Smithóó,Ð 45„06 ÐѾTÑâ âÑ8€M—XXdæXXdæ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñ599€S.W.2d€548,€560€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1979).€€The€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefÐ ° Ðcan€be€granted€is€determined€by€an€examination€of€the€complaint€alone.€€òòWolcotts€Fin.€Ð |Ì ÐServ.,€Inc.€v.€McReynoldsóó,€807€S.W.2d€708,€710€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€The€basis€for€theÐ H˜ Ðmotion€is€that€the€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint,€considered€alone€and€taken€asÐ  d Ðtrue,€are€insufficient€to€state€a€claim€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòShelby€County€v.€Kingóó,€620€S.W.2dÐ à 0 Ð493,€494€(Tenn.€1981);€€òòShipley€v.€Knoxville€Journal€Corp.óó,€670€S.W.2d€222,€223€(Tenn.Ð ¬ ü  ÐCt.€App.€1984).€€The€motion€admits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€and€material€avermentsÐ xÈ  Ðcontained€in€the€complaint€but€asserts€that€such€facts€do€not€constitute€a€cause€of€action.€Ð D”  ÐòòLeague€Cent.€Credit€Union€v.€Motternóó,€660€S.W.2d€787,€789€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€InÐ ` Ðscrutinizing€the€complaint€in€the€face€of€a€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss,€we€shouldÐ Ü, Ðconstrue€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff,€taking€all€allegations€of€fact€thereinÐ ¨ø Ðas€true.€€òòFuerst€v.€Methodist€Hospital€Southóó,€566€S.W.2d€847,€848-49€(Tenn.€1978);€Ð tÄ ÐòòHolloway€v.€Putnam€Countyóó,€534€S.W.2d€292,€296€(Tenn.€1976).€€The€motion€should€beÐ @ Ðdenied€unless€it€appears€that€the€plaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€his€or€herÐ  \ Ðclaim€that€would€entitle€him€or€her€to€relief.€€òòFuerstóó,€566€S.W.2d€at€848.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àIn€his€amended€complaint,€Cobb€names€Evelyn€Scallions€and€Steve€Vaughn€asÐ p!À  Ðdefendants.€€In€order€to€sustain€a€claim€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983,€the€pleadings€mustÐ <#Œ" Ðcontain€factual€allegations€sufficient€to€show€unconstitutional€conduct.€€òòChapman€v.€CityÐ %X $ Ðof€Detroitóó,€808€F.2d€459€(6th€Cir.€1986).€€The€complaint€is€not€sufficient€if€it€merely€statesÐ Ô&$"& Ðconclusory€allegations.€€òòSmith€v.€Roseóó,€760€F.2d€102,€106€(6th€Cir.€1985).€€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€we€find€nothing€in€the€complaint€to€show€unconstitutionalÐ 8,ˆ', Ðconduct€on€the€part€of€Evelyn€Scallions€or€Steve€Vaughn.€€As€to€Evelyn€Scallions,€theÐ .T). Ðrecord€is€devoid€of€any€hint€of€unconstitutional€conduct.€€In€fact,€the€claim€against€her€isÐ Ð/ +0 Ðespecially€perplexing€when€one€considers€that€she€wrote€a€pass€to€the€infirmary€for€theÐ œ1ì,2 Ðappellant€when€his€alleged€injury€occurred.€€To€use€the€language€in€appellantððs€complaint,Ð h3¸.4 ÐScallions€ð ðimmediately€notified€the€clinic€of€this€emergency.ðð€€Outside€of€this€one€positiveÐ 45„06 Ðinteraction€between€the€appellant€and€Scallions,€her€name€is€rarely€mentioned€in€theÐ 7P28 Ðrecord.€€Even€the€most€liberal€reading€of€the€complaint€fails€to€provide€a€basis€for€the€claimÐ Ì84: Ðagainst€Scallions.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àCobb€alleges€that€Steve€Vaughn€instructed€him€to€clean€the€showers€with€a€scrubÐ H˜ Ðbrush.€€As€a€result€of€this€order,€Cobb€suffered€the€injury€when€the€cleaning€solutionÐ  d Ðsplashed€into€his€eye.€€While€it€is€unfortunate€that€Mr.€Cobb€suffered€an€injury,€that€injuryÐ à 0 Ðdoes€not€amount€to€a€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòFarmer€v.€Brennanóó,€511Ð ¬ ü  ÐU.S.€825,€114€S.Ct.€1970,€128€L.Ed.2d€811€(1994)€(stating€that€an€Eighth€AmendmentÐ xÈ  Ðclaim€requires€a€showing€that€the€inmate€ð ðis€incarcerated€under€conditions€posing€aÐ D”  Ðsubstantial€risk€of€serious€harmðð).€€A€one„time,€relatively€minor€injury€certainly€does€notÐ ` Ðstate€a€claim€under€the€òòFarmeróó€standard.€€As€we€see€no€other€factual€allegations€againstÐ Ü, ÐVaughn€or€Scallions€which€could€possibly€support€a€claim€of€unconstitutional€conduct,€weÐ ¨ø Ðfind€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€complaint€against€Evelyn€Scallions€andÐ tÄ ÐSteve€Vaughn.€€Ð @ Ðà  àÌÓ  ÓòòòòCharles€WilsonóóóóÐ Ø( ÐÓ  Óà  àCobb€alleges€that€the€actions€of€Charles€Wilson€constituted€ð ðcruel€and€unusualÐ ¤ô Ðpunishment,€retaliation,€[and]€arbitrary€and€capricious€decisions.ðð€€The€complaint,€however,Ð p!À  Ðdoes€not€provide€a€factual€basis€sufficient€to€support€the€claims€as€a€matter€of€law.€€EvenÐ <#Œ" Ðassuming€the€truth€of€all€factual€allegations€made€by€the€appellant,€it€is€clear€that€thoseÐ %X $ Ðfacts€do€not€amount€to€a€violation€of€appellantððs€civil€rights.€€Prison€officials€have€broadÐ Ô&$"& Ðdiscretion€over€all€aspects€of€the€operation€of€prisons.€€€òòHewitt€v.€Helmsóó,€459€U.S.€460,€103Ð  (ð#( ÐS.Ct.€864,€74€L.Ed.2d€675€(1983);€€€òòMeachum€v.€Fanoóó,€427€U.S.€215,€96€S.Ct.€2532,€49Ð l*¼%* ÐL.Ed.2d€451€(1976);òò€Wolff€v.€McDonnellóó,€418€U.S.€539,€94€S.Ct.€2963,€41€L.Ed.2d€935Ð 8,ˆ', Ð(1974).€€As€far€as€we€can€determine,€the€appellantððs€primary€complaint€is€that€he€did€notÐ .T). Ðlike€the€job€he€was€made€to€perform.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Appellant€had€no€protected€due€process€right€in€aÐ Ð/ +0 Ðparticular€job.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandin€v.€Conneróó,€515€U.S.€472,€115€S.Ct.2293,€132€L.Ed.2d€418Ð œ1ì,2 Ð(1995).€€As€such,€Cobb€has€no€right€to€complain€about€a€particular€job€assignment.€€AllÐ h3¸.4 Ðdecisions€made€by€Wilson€were€squarely€within€the€broad€discretion€that€such€officials€areÐ ° Ðafforded.€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àAppellant€also€fails€in€his€complaint€to€make€out€a€viable€claim€of€retaliation.€€ThisÐ  d Ðclaim€must€include€a€ð ðchronology€of€events€from€which€retaliation€may€plausibly€beÐ à 0 Ðinferred.ðð€€òòIshaaq€v.€Comptonóó,€900€F.Supp.€935,€940€(W.D.€Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€€òòCain€v.Ð ¬ ü  ÐLaneóó,€857€F.2d€1139,€1143€n.€6€(7th€Cir.€1988)).€€The€prison€officialððs€conduct€mustÐ xÈ  Ðtranscend€all€bounds€of€reasonable€conduct€and€shock€the€conscience.€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòWilliamsÐ D”  Ðv.€Smithóó,€717€F.Supp.€523,€525€(W.D.Mich.€1989).€€In€short,€the€prison€officialððs€allegedÐ ` Ðconduct€must€constitute€ð ðan€egregious€abuse€of€governmental€power.ðð€€òòCale€v.€Johnsonóó,Ð Ü, Ð861€F.2d€943,€950€(6th€Cir.€1988).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àCobb€makes€no€allegations€which€could€possibly€be€construed€to€constituteÐ @ Ðð ðegregiousðð€conduct€on€the€part€of€Wilson.€€Cobb€merely€alleges€that€all€actions€takenÐ  \ Ðagainst€him€arose€from€his€filing€of€a€grievance.€€Such€conclusory€allegations€are€notÐ Ø( Ðsufficient€to€make€out€a€claim€of€retaliation.€€òòSeeóó€òòIshaaqóó,€900€F.Supp.€at€940€(citing€òòSmithÐ ¤ô Ðv.€Halfordóó,€570€F.Supp.1187,€1194„95€(D.Kan.€1983).€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àFinally,€appellant€argues€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€amend€his€complaintÐ %X $ Ðin€order€to€present€sufficient€factual€allegations€to€support€his€claim.€€This€issue€is€withoutÐ Ô&$"& Ðmerit€since€we€find€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€appellant€ever€made€a€motion€toÐ  (ð#( Ðamend€in€the€trial€court.€€Appellant€cites€numerous€cases€standing€for€the€proposition€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðpermission€to€amend€should€be€freely€given.€€òòSeeóó€òòNeitzke€v.€Williamsóó,€490€U.S.€319,€109Ð 8,ˆ', ÐS.Ct.€1827,€104€L.Ed.2d€338€(1989)€(discussing€the€opportunity€to€amend€complaint€òòbeforeóóÐ .T). Ðthe€motion€to€dismiss€is€ruled€upon);€€òòInterroyal€Corp.€v.€Sponselleróó,€889€F.2d€108€(6th€Cir.Ð Ð/ +0 Ð1989)€(reversing€trial€court€decision€that€denied€plaintiffððs€motion€to€amend€complaint);€Ð œ1ì,2 ÐòòGillihan€v.€Shillingeróó,€872€F.2d€935€(10th€Cir.€1989)€(trial€court€erroneously€denied€plaintiffððsÐ h3¸.4 Ðmotion€to€supplement€his€complaint);€€òòAllen€v.€Ronanóó,€764€F.Supp.€738€(D.€Conn.€1991)Ð 45„06 Ð(trial€court€permitted€leave€to€amend€complaint€provided€plaintiff€could€set€forth€factsÐ 7P28 Ðsupporting€his€claim).€€However,€the€cases€cited€by€the€appellant€apply€to€instances€whereÐ Ì84: Ðthe€motion€to€amend€came€òòbeforeóó€the€dismissal€of€the€case.€€We€find€nothing€to€indicateÐ ° Ðthat€this€court€should€entertain€a€motion€to€amend€a€complaint€where€such€a€motion€wasÐ |Ì Ðnot€filed€prior€to€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€case.€Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòòòConclusionóóóóÐ à 0 ÐÓ  Óà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal.€€Costs€of€thisÐ ¬ ü  Ðappeal€are€taxed€against€Steven€Cobb.Ð xÈ  ÐÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ü, Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àóóHIGHERS,€J.Ð Â ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð Zª ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ òB ÐFARMER,€J.Ð Ø( ÐÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ p!À  ÐLILLARD,€J.