Jason Diedrich v. City of Newport News, Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-00002-RAJ-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999860686].. [15-2060]

Appeal: 15-2060

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2060

JASON LEON DIEDRICH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; JAMES M. BOUREY; RICHARD W.
MYERS; YVONNE M. MANNING,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00002-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 21, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin P. Shea, KEVIN P. SHEA, ATTORNEY–AT-LAW, INC., Hampton,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Darlene P. Bradberry, Christopher M.
Midgley, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2060

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jason
dismissing

Leon
his

Diedrich
civil

appeals

action

§ 1983 (2012) and state law.
(1)

whether

demotion

the

claim

district

was

barred

the

alleging

district
claims

court’s

under

42

order
U.S.C.

On appeal he raises three issues:
court
by

erred

res

by

finding

judicata;

(2)

that

his

whether

the

district court erred by ruling that his personnel records claim
was time barred; and (3) whether the district court erred by
denying him a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
We

review

de

novo

the

district

court’s

granting

of

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th
Cir.

2009).

Like

the

district

court,

we

must

take

the

complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours &

Co. v. Kolon Indus. Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011).

To

survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.

Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Diedrich v. City of Newport News, No. 4:15-cv-00002-RAJ-

LRL (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2015); see Cray Commc’ns, Inc. v. Novatel
Computr Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting
2

Appeal: 15-2060

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

that there is no absolute requirement that a ruling on a summary
motion

be

preceded

by

a

hearing).

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

3