Carpenter v. County School Bd, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2506 CLAUDE S. CARPENTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Fairfax County; DANIEL A. DOMENECH; JANICE A. WHITFIELD; TERESA M. MATARAZZO; JOAN T. SHETTERLY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-03-1151-A)

Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wendu Mekbib, LAW OFFICES OF WENDU MEKBIB, Vienna, Virginia, for

Appellant. Thomas J. Cawley, Sona Rewari, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,

L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Claude S. Carpenter appeals a district court order dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) his complaint alleging a

claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §

  (2000) (“ADEA”) and several state law claims. We affirm. We review de novo the district courtÂ’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Duckworth v. State

Admin. Bd. of Election Laws

, 332 F.3d 769, 772 (4th Cir. 2003). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of a claim that would entitle him to relief.

Conley v. Gibson

, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The factual allegations set forth in the complaint must be accepted as true,

Zinermon v. Burch

, 494 U.S. 113, 118 (1990), and we must view those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Scheurer v. Rhodes

, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). This court’s inquiry on appeal is solely whether the “pleadings adequately state a set

of facts which, if proven to be true, would entitle [the plaintiff]

to judicial relief.” Duckworth

, 332 F.3d at 772. As an initial matter, we find the district court did not improperly convert the defendantÂ’s motion to dismiss to one for

summary judgment. The court properly requested of Carpenter facts

supporting the complaintÂ’s conclusory allegations. See

Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 324 F.3d 761 (4th Cir.), cert denied

,

- 3 - 124 S. Ct. 301 (2003). As we stated in Bass

, “[w]hile a plaintiff is not charged with pleading facts sufficient to prove her case, as

an evidentiary matter, in her complaint, a plaintiff is required to allege facts that support a claim for relief.” Id. at 765. We find Carpenter failed to allege sufficient facts in support of his ADEA claim to defeat a motion to dismiss. Carpenter

did nothing more than state that he was in a protected class and

that he suffered adverse employment decisions.

With respect to CarpenterÂ’s defamation claims, we find he

failed to allege facts supporting a defamation claim against any of

the defendants. The statements of defendants Teresa M. Matarazzo

and Joan T. Shetterly were protected by a qualified privilege. See

Larimore v. Blalock

, 528 S.E.2d 119, 121 (Va. 2000). The statements made by defendant Janice A. Whitfield were not

defamatory. Carpenter§ 2.2-3900(B)(2) (2001),

must fail. Carpenter is not seeking to determine “legal rights” or

“legal relationships.” Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Quarles

, 92 F.2d 321, 325 (4th Cir. 1937). His request for a declaratory judgment

only duplicates his attempt to seek relief under the ADEA and

various common law theories. Finally, we find that Carpenter failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of

- 4 - emotional distress. Even if MatarazzoÂ’s and ShetterlyÂ’s

allegations were false, the allegations were not outrageous or

extreme. Russo v. White

, 400 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Va. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the district courtÂ’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

---