(USA), Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.2003). However, conclusory allegations and legal conclusions will not prevent a motion to dismiss. In re MasterCard Int’l Inc., 313 F.3d 257, 261 (5th Cir.2002). Most importantly, the purpose of a plaintiffs pleadings are to provide notice, and “a court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513-14, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Because pleadings are only required to give notice of a claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 generally does not require plaintiffs to plead every fact that they must ultimately prove. See id.; Woodfield v. Bourman, 193 F.3d 354, 362 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th
holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate holding the employees complaints must give adequate notice to the employer that the employee is complaining of conduct prohibited by title vii holding that courts look to substance of plea for relief to determine nature of pleading not merely title of pleading holding that group pleading did not render complaint infirm where complaint provided fair notice of claims holding that a pleading may give proper fair notice even where only the title of the theory is pled