Fenyang Stewart v. The UNC System

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999879050-2]; denying Motion to participate in oral argument [999879050-3]; denying Motion to approve/authorize [999879050-4] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01487-AJT-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999984649].. [16-1552]

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1552

FENYANG AJAMU STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM; NORTH CAROLINA
AGRICULTURAL
&
TECHNICAL
STATE
UNIVERSITY;
NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF AEROSPACE ASSOCIATES, INC.; WILLIAM EDMONSON,
NIA Distinguished Langley Professor, Full Professor, North
Carolina A&T State University; JOHN KELLY, Chairman;
ELECTRIC AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA
A&T STATE UNIVERSITY; CATHY HOPKINS, Human Resources
Director, National Institute of Aerospace,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01487-AJT-JFA)

Submitted:

November 29, 2016

Decided:

December 12, 2016

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Fenyang Ajamu Stewart, Appellant Pro Se.
Matthew Thomas
Tulchin, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 7

Carolina; Eve Grandis Campbell, O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Fenyang Ajamu Stewart appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil rights complaint and its orders denying his
motions for reconsideration.

Stewart’s complaint alleged claims

against two groups of defendants — the National Institute of
Aerospace

Associates,

Director

of

and

University

the

Human

Inc.

(“NIA”)

Resources
of

and

Cathy

(collectively,

North

Carolina

Hopkins,

“NIA

System,

NIA’s

defendants”),

North

Carolina

Agricultural & Technical State University (“NC A&T”), William
Edmonson,

and

defendants”).

John

Kelly

(collectively,

“North

Carolina

We vacate the district court’s order dismissing

Counts 2 through 4 of Stewart’s amended complaint as to the NIA
defendants,

affirm

the

district

court’s

orders

in

all

other

respects, and remand for further proceedings.
The district court concluded that Stewart’s claims against
the North Carolina defendants were barred by Eleventh Amendment
immunity.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of an

action under the Eleventh Amendment.

Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys.,

773 F.3d 536, 542 (4th Cir. 2014).

Stewart concedes that the

Supreme

Court

has

Eleventh Amendment.
(1979).

found

that

such

claims

are

barred

by

the

See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341

While Stewart contends that the Supreme Court erred in

so ruling, we are bound to follow Supreme Court precedent.

Stop

Reckless Econ. Instability Caused by Democrats v. Fed. Election
3

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 4 of 7

Comm’n, 814 F.3d 221, 230-31 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
Ct.

S.

, No. 16-109, 2016 WL 4001325 (U.S. Oct. 31, 2016).

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

portions

of

the

district

court’s

order dismissing the North Carolina defendants, as well as the
district

court’s

orders

denying

Stewart’s

district

court’s

motions

for

reconsideration.
We

review

complaint

de

under

allegations
reasonable

novo

a

R.

the

in

Fed.

complaint

inferences

Civ.

in

P.

12(b)(6),

as

favor

true

of

the

dismissal
accepting

and

of

factual

“draw[ing]

[nonmoving

a

all

party].”

Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d
462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
survive

a

motion

to

dismiss,

the

complaint’s

To

“[f]actual

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level” and sufficient “to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”
U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
of

a

statute

of

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

A court may dismiss on the grounds

limitations

defense

if

the

“clearly appear on the face of the complaint.”

necessary

facts

Waugh Chapel S.,

LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27, 728 F.3d
354, 360 (4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Stewart

contends

that

the

district

court

erred

in

dismissing Counts 2 and 3 of the amended complaint, asserting
4

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 5 of 7

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2012) against the NIA defendants,
because the federal four-year statute of limitations applies.
We agree.

Generally, § 1981 claims are governed by the most

analogous state statute of limitations.

James v. Circuit City

Stores, Inc., 370 F.3d 417, 420 (4th Cir. 2004).

The district

court applied this general rule and found Virginia’s two-year
statute of limitations applicable.
243(A) (2015).

See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-

However, if a claim is based on § 1981(b), which

covers “claims based on conduct occurring after the formation of
the

contractual

relationship,”

statute of limitations applies.

then

the

federal

four-year

James, 370 F.3d at 421.

We conclude that Stewart’s claims in Counts 2 and 3 are
based on postformation conduct, and thus the four-year statute
of limitations applies.
401,

405

(1st

Cir.

See Buntin v. City of Boston, 813 F.3d
2015)

(applying

four-year

statute

of

limitations to retaliation claim under § 1981); White v. BFI
Waste Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding
that hostile work environment claims are subject to four-year
statute of limitations).

Because these claims concern events

that occurred in 2012 and Stewart filed his complaint in October
2015, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing
these claims as time-barred.
Stewart

next

contends

that

the

district

court

erred

in

dismissing Count 4 of the amended complaint, which he alleges
5

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 6 of 7

was brought under § 1981(b), and not under Virginia law as the
district court concluded.

We agree.

Count 4 of Stewart’s claim

cited § 1981 and alleged that the NIA defendants did not pay him
an adequate stipend and removed him from his doctoral program on
the basis of his race.

We conclude that the district court

should have analyzed the claim under § 1981 and not Virginia
law.

Thus,

Count

4

we

against

vacate
the

the

NIA

district

court’s

defendants,

and

order

remand

dismissing

for

further

consideration of this claim.
Finally, Stewart contends that the district court erred in
dismissing his claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 to 1968 (2012).

We

conclude that the district court correctly dismissed this claim,
as

Stewart’s

constitute

a

allegations
predicate

act

of

racial

of

discrimination

racketeering

under

do

not

RICO.

US

Airline Pilots Ass’n v. Awappa, LLC, 615 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir.
2010) (“To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must allege
that the defendants engaged in, or conspired to engage in, a
pattern

of

omitted);

racketeering
see

18

activity.”

U.S.C.

(internal

§ 1961(1)

quotation

(defining

marks

racketeering

activity).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, with
the exception of the court’s disposition of Counts 2 through 4
of Stewart’s amended complaint against the NIA defendants.
6

As

Appeal: 16-1552

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/12/2016

Pg: 7 of 7

to those claims, we vacate the district court’s dismissal and
remand

for

further

proceedings.

We

further

deny

Stewart’s

motion to appoint counsel and to participate in oral argument.
By this opinion, we express no view on the merits of Stewart’s
claims

against

the

NIA

defendants.

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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

7