Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171218_0001217.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:20:02+00:00

Document:
CITY OF EMPORIA, et al, Defendants.
Plaintiff Regina H. Gordon ("Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this wrongful termination action against the following defendants: the City of Emporia ("Emporia"); Brian Thrower, City Manager of Emporia ("Thrower"); Nancy Turner, Supervisor of the Emporia Family Violence and Sexual Assault Unit ("Turner"); F. Woodrow Harris, Director of Probation Services for Emporia ("Harris"); and, Mary Person, Mayor of Emporia ("Person") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disability and unlawfully terminated her employment with Emporia in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 el seq. (the "ADA"). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for her wrongful discharge and for the pain, suffering and emotional distress that she has suffered as a result.
This matter comes before the Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
When resolving a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court construes the allegations in favor of the non-moving party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c); Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., 386 F.3d 581, 591 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, for the purpose of resolving Defendants' Motion, the Court finds the relevant facts as follows.
A motion made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. If a defendant contends that the "complaint simply fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be based, " all facts in the complaint are presumed true. Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982)). Alternatively, if the defendant argues that the jurisdictional facts in the complaint are untrue, the Court "may go beyond the allegations of the complaint... [to] determine if there are facts to support the jurisdictional allegations." Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192 (quoting Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219). Consideration of evidence outside of the pleadings does not necessarily convert the motion to one for summary judgment. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991)). In either case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish jurisdiction. Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac R. Co., 945 F.2d at 768.

References: § 12101
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.