Court Opinion

ID: 9365025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:51.662043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.639198
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2105      Doc: 21          Filed: 01/19/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2105

        DORA L. ADKINS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        AMERICAN SERVICE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC; MICHAEL CHARAPP,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00956-LMB-WEF)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2105       Doc: 21         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Dora L. Adkins appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for leave to

        file a complaint and application to proceed on that complaint in forma pauperis. * These

        rulings were made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires a district court

        to dismiss those civil actions filed in forma pauperis that are frivolous or fail to state a

        claim on which relief may be granted. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis

        in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 322-23 (1989). We review the dismissal

        of a claim as frivolous for abuse of discretion. Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254-55

        (4th Cir. 2004). The dismissal of a claim for failure to state a claim on which relief may

        be granted is reviewed de novo. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248

        (4th Cir. 2005). Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally,

        Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), her complaint must contain factual

        allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and that “state

        a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

        555, 570 (2007). This “plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to demonstrate more than

        a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d

        186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). She must articulate facts that,

        when accepted as true, demonstrate she has stated a claim entitling her to relief. Id.

               *
                  The district court also directed the clerk not to accept further motions for leave to
        file or other attempts by Adkins to file a new civil action unless she pays the required filing
        fee and administrative fee, but Adkins confines her appeal to the district court’s denial
        rulings.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2105     Doc: 21         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

              Adkins’ proposed complaint fails to state a plausible claim under Virginia law

        against Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Delk v.

        Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 523 S.E.2d 826, 833 (Va. 2000); Jordan v. Shands,

        500 S.E.2d 215, 218-19 (Va. 1998), and is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment. Adkins v. Am. Serv. Ctr. Assocs., LLC., No. 1:22-cv-00956-LMB-WEF

        (E.D. Va. Oct. 19, 2022). We grant Adkins’ motion for leave to amend her informal brief

        and deny her motions to vacate and remand, to remand, for leave to withdraw, for leave to

        vacate and remand, and to withdraw. 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

                                                   3