Williams v. United States , 257 F. App'x 648 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2043
W. SHEROD WILLIAMS, Ph.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cv-02216-WMN)
Submitted: July 9, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ari Taragin, Michael J. Snider, SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
W. Sherod Williams filed an employment discrimination
action against the Department of Veterans Affairs (“Defendant”),
asserting that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based
upon race and retaliation and that Defendant retaliated against
him. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendant’s
motion to dismiss and dismissed the action. “We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Sec’y of State for
Def. v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007).
“[W]hen ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must
accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the
complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007)
(citations omitted). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[f]actual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level” and have “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 1974 (2007).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
on appeal and conclude that the district court erred in dismissing
Williams’ complaint for failure to state a claim. See Baqir v.
Principi, 434 F.3d 733, 745-47 (4th Cir.) (discussing elements of
hostile work environment and retaliation claims), cert. denied, 127
- 2 -
S. Ct. 659 (2006). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
order and remand for further proceedings. We express no view on
the ultimate disposition of Williams’ claims. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -