Dora Adkins v. American Service Center Associates, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 22-2105
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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