Cameron Thomaz v. It's My Party, Incorporated , 548 F. App'x 893 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1620
CAMERON JIBRIL THOMAZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
IT'S MY PARTY, INCORPORATED, d/b/a I.M.P., Incorporated,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SETH HURWITZ,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00009-JCC-TRJ)
Submitted: November 27, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey L. Marks, Lauren T. Rogers, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. L. Barrett Boss, S. Rebecca
Brodey, COZEN O’CONNOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cameron Jibril Thomaz appeals the district court’s
order granting the Appellee’s motion and dismissing Thomaz’
complaint alleging breach of contract pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). We review de novo a district court’s dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the
complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor
of the nonmoving party. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v.
Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). To survive
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient “facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). Moreover, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, “a court
may consider documents attached to the complaint or the motion
to dismiss so long as they are integral to the complaint and
authentic.” Kensington, 684 F.3d at 467 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
In addition, “[w]e are not limited to evaluation of
the grounds offered by the district court to support its
decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the
record.” United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir.
2005). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant
legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not
2
err in dismissing Thomaz’ claim for breach of contract for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3