Carpenter v. County School Board , 107 F. App'x 351 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
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. §
621 (2000) (“ADEA”) and several state law claims. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’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 defendant’s motion to dismiss to one for
summary judgment. The court properly requested of Carpenter facts
supporting the complaint’s conclusory allegations. See Bass v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761 (4th Cir.), cert denied,
- 2 -
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 Carpenter’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’s request for a declaratory judgment under the
Virginia Human Rights Act, Va. Code Ann. § 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
- 3 -
emotional distress. Even if Matarazzo’s and Shetterly’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 court’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
- 4 -