Rory Wallace v. The State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00276-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460120]. Mailed to: Rory Wallace. [14-1551]

Appeal: 14-1551

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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

Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.

and

KING,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

October 22, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1551

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

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.”
521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008).

Giarratano v. Johnson,

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.”
Slate

Corp.

v.

Fehrer,

666

F.3d

261,

264

LeSueur Richmond
(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

Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).

2

relief.

Appeal: 14-1551

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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,

Wallace

v.

Maryland,

we
No.

affirm

the

district

1:14-cv-00276-CCB

court’s

(D.

Md.

order.

May

23,

2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
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