UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1551
RORY L. WALLACE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND; PETER FRANCHOT, Comptroller, The
State of Maryland Office of Comptroller; STEVE BARZAL,
Director, Office of Personnel Services Office Comptroller;
JOHN AND JANE DOE 1-99; XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, County or
Government entities and their supervisors, agents and
employees,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00276-CCB)
Submitted: October 14, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rory L. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Brian L. Oliner, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rory L. Wallace appeals from the district court’s
order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and
dismissing her civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012)
(“Title VII”), and Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)
(LexisNexis Supp. 2014), for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. We affirm.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
for failure to state a claim de novo, “focus[ing] only on the
legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Giarratano v. Johnson,
521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). In determining whether the
district court’s dismissal was proper, we “accept[] as true all
of the well-pleaded allegations and view[] the complaint in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party.” LeSueur Richmond
Slate Corp. v. Fehrer, 666 F.3d 261, 264 (4th Cir. 2012).
We then determine whether a “plausible claim for relief” has
been made. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009).
This plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to articulate
facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate she has stated a
claim that makes it plausible she is entitled to relief.
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error in the district court’s dismissal decision. * Wallace’s
complaint does not articulate facts that, when accepted as true,
demonstrate she has stated plausible claims for relief under
Title VII and Maryland law for discrimination based on race and
under Title VII for a hostile work environment based on race and
retaliation. See Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187,
190 (4th Cir. 2010); Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208,
218-19 (4th Cir. 2007); Price v. Thompson, 380 F.3d 209, 213
(4th Cir. 2004); Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d
761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003); Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv.
Co., 80 F.3d 954, 959-60 (4th Cir. 1996); Dobkin v. Univ. of
Baltimore Sch. of Law, 63 A.3d 692, 699-700 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.
2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Wallace v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00276-CCB (D. Md. May 23,
2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
We reject as unsupported by the record Wallace’s assertion
on appeal that the district court treated Defendants’ motion to
dismiss her action as a motion for summary judgment.
3