Court Opinion

ID: 9381133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:13.169411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.231720
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1909      Doc: 20         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1909

        THE HANSON COMPANY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00147-DJN)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jason M. Krumbein, KRUMBEIN CONSUMER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
        Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Wirt P. Marks, IV, OFFICE OF THE CITY
        ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1909         Doc: 20      Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               The Hanson Company (“THC”) appeals the district court’s order granting the City

        of Richmond’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing as barred by the statute of

        limitations THC’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging race discrimination in violation of

        the Fourteenth Amendment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

               We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under Rule

        12(b)(6), “accept[ing] the factual allegations of the complaint as true and constru[ing] them

        in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of

        Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). “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, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). In other words, “a plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to show that he has a

        more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Upstate Forever v. Kinder

        Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up), vacated on

        other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020).

               We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials submitted on appeal, and the

        district court’s order, and we conclude that the district court properly found that THC’s

        claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. 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

                                                     2