UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: October 22, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

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.” Giarratano v. Johnson, 

521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). 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.” LeSueur Richmond 

Slate Corp. v. Fehrer, 666 F.3d 261, 264 (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 relief. 

Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009). 
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, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Wallace v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00276-CCB (D. Md. May 23, 

2014). 

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

 * 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.