Case Name: Sally R. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY; Prince George's County Educator's Association, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-01
Citations: 508 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 12-1976
Parties: Sally R. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY; Prince George’s County Educator’s Association, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 508
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Sally R. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY; Prince George’s County Educator’s Association, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-1976.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 30, 2018.
Decided: Feb. 1, 2013.
Sally R. Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Judah Baror, Linda Hitt Thatcher, Thatcher Law Firm, Greenbelt, Maryland; Christopher Mark Feldenzer, Jeffrey Elliot Rockman, Serotte Rockman and West-cott, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sally R. Rogers appeals from the district court's order dismissing her complaint for failing to state a claim. Rogers sued the Board of Education of Prince George's County because she believed that she was the victim of a hostile work environment because of her race. She also claimed that the Prince George's County Educator's Association, her union, acted in a discriminatory manner when she attempted to file a grievance. We affirm.
This court reviews de novo a district court's order granting a defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. McCorkle v. Bank of Am. Corp., 688 F.3d 164, 171 (4th Cir.2012), petition for cert, filed (Dec. 4, 2012) (No. 12-700). When deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the district court "focus[es] only on the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.2008). In doing so, the court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). The court does not have to accept the plaintiffs legal conclusions based on the facts or accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions or arguments. Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302. While a plaintiffs complaint need only give fair notice of the claim, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197 a complaint may survive a motion to dismiss only if it "states a plausible claim for relief' that "permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
To establish a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim, Rogers must show that the offending conduct was: (1) unwelcome; (2) based on her race; (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and (4) imputable to the defendant. EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc., 573 F.3d 167, 175 (4th Cir.2009). Rogers must also show that she subjectively perceived the workplace environment as hostile and that it would be objectively perceived as hostile or abusive. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993).
We have reviewed the amended complaint and conclude that Rogers failed to state a plausible claim for relief. Rogers failed to sufficiently allege that the offending conduct was based on her race and sufficiently severe or pervasive. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rogers v. Board of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty., No. 8:11— cv-01194-PJM (D.Md. July 27, 2012). We deny Rogers' motion to appoint counsel. 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.