Nash v. Braswell Foods

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 2/28/2017. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

RICARDO NASH,
Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:16cv592

BRASWELL FOODS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Braswell Foods' ("Braswell") Motion

to Dismiss for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction" pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the "Motion to Dismiss"). (ECF No. 4.) Braswell provided
Plaintiff Ricardo Nash, who proceeds pro se, with appropriate notice pursuant to Roseboro v.

Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). (Mot. Dismiss 1n.l, ECF No. 4.)' Nash did not
respond, and the time to do so has expired. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the
materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not

' Braswell also properly filed two exhibits with itsMotion to Dismiss: (1) a copy of
Nash's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC Charge"); and, (2) a copy of the EEOC's Dismissal and Notice of Rights, commonly
called a "Right to Sue" letter. The Court will consider these exhibits in ruling on Braswell's
Motion to Dismiss because Nash referred to them in his Complaint, they are integral to his claim,
and neither party disputes their authenticity. Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App'x 395, 39697 (4th Cir. 2006) ("[A] court may consider ... documents central to plaintiffs claim[] and
documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint [without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
into one for summary judgment] so long as the authenticity of these documents is not
disputed.").