Cameron Thomaz v. It's My Party, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00009-JCC-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999263876].. [13-1620]

Appeal: 13-1620

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/20/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1620

CAMERON JIBRIL THOMAZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
IT'S MY PARTY, INCORPORATED, d/b/a I.M.P., Incorporated,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SETH HURWITZ,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00009-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:

November 27, 2013

Decided:

December 20, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey L. Marks, Lauren T. Rogers, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. L. Barrett Boss, S. Rebecca
Brodey, COZEN O’CONNOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1620

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/20/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Jibril

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Cameron
order

granting

the

Thomaz

Appellee’s

motion

the

and

district

court’s

dismissing

Thomaz’

complaint alleging breach of contract pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
under

Rule

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal
12(b)(6),

accepting

factual

allegations

in

the

complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor
of

the

nonmoving

party.

Kensington

Volunteer

Fire

Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012).
a

Rule

12(b)(6)

motion

to

dismiss,

a

complaint

Dep’t

v.

To survive

must

contain

sufficient “facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.”
(2007).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

Moreover, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, “a court

may consider documents attached to the complaint or the motion
to dismiss so long as they are integral to the complaint and
authentic.”

Kensington, 684 F.3d at 467 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).
In addition, “[w]e are not limited to evaluation of
the

grounds

decision,
record.”
2005).

but

offered
may

by

affirm

the
on

district
any

court

grounds

to

support

apparent

from

its
the

United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant

legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not

2

Appeal: 13-1620

err

Doc: 25

in

Filed: 12/20/2013

dismissing

Thomaz’

Pg: 3 of 3

claim

for

breach

of

contract

for

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3