Opinion
22-2141
01-19-2023
DORA L. ADKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 17, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01114-LMB-IDD)
Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 and closing the case. After review of the record, we conclude that the district court's closure was 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.
Adkins' proposed complaint fails to state a plausible claim under Virginia law against Defendant 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. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01114-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 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 vacate and remand, for leave to withdraw, 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.