**UN PUBLISHED**  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 un published 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Rory L. Wallace appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed.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”), a nd 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, “foc us[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 c omplaint 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 (20 09). 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 hav e 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

un der Title VII for a hostile work environment based on race and retaliation. S ee Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals , 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010) ; Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc. , 487 F.3d 208, 21 8

- 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.3 d 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 present ed in the materials before th is 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.