Opinion
22-1909
03-20-2023
THE HANSON COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 16, 2023
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)
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.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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