Opinion ID: 2977151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: The Court reviews a district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Zaluski v. United Am. Healthcare Corp., 527 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir. 2008). In so doing, the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepts all well-pled factual allegations as true. Id. A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted “only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle him or her to relief.” Downie v. City of Middleburg Heights, 301 F.3d 688, 693 (6th Cir. 2002). As instructed by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, claims survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only where the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1959 (2007). This Court may affirm the district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims on any grounds, including those not relied on by the district court. Zaluski, 527 F.3d at 570. - 10 - No. 07-6329 Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. v. Henson, et al.