Case Name: Monty Ray HOBBS; Patte A. Hobbs, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Bureau of Prisons; Warden Adams; Jimmie Earp, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-08
Citations: 43 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 02-6436
Parties: Monty Ray HOBBS; Patte A. Hobbs, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Bureau of Prisons; Warden Adams; Jimmie Earp, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
Monty Ray HOBBS; Patte A. Hobbs, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Bureau of Prisons; Warden Adams; Jimmie Earp, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6436.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2002.
Decided Aug. 8, 2002.
Monty Ray Hobbs, Patte A. Hobbs, Appellants Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Monty Hobbs and Patte Hobbs appeal the district court's order granting the Appellees' motion to dismiss their civil rights action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.
We review a district court's Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted de novo. Flood v. New Hanover County, 125 F.3d 249, 251 (4th Cir.1997). In considering a motion to dismiss, we accept the complainant's well-pleaded allegations as true and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). Generally, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will not be granted unless it is certain the plaintiff could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Id.
With these standards in mind, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hobbs v. United States, No. CA-01-168-5H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.