Dora Adkins v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 22-2141
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2141 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2141

DORA L. ADKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

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)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2141 Doc: 17 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 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,

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2141 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

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