Opinion ID: 617638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo an order of dismissal for failure to state a claim. Tambone, 597 F.3d at 441. In conducting this review, we accept as true all well-pleaded facts set forth in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the pleader's favor. Artuso v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 637 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2011) (citing Tambone, 597 F.3d at 441). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if supported by factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. While [t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a `probability requirement,' it demands more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Unless the alleged facts push a claim across the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint is subject to dismissal. Id. at 1951 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955).