Charles Young, Jr. v. City of Manassas ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2247 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2247
CHARLES A. YOUNG, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MANASSAS; BRYAN FOSTER, Deputy City Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00590-LO-TCB)
Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Alan S. Shachter, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellant. Heather K. Bardot,
MCGAVIN, BOYCE, BARDOT, THORSEN & KATZ, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2247 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Young appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint and
denying reconsideration. In his complaint, Young alleged that he was an employee for the
City of Manassas, Virginia (“the City”), and that the City and the Deputy City Manager,
Bryan Foster, violated his procedural due process rights by suspending him for three days
without pay. * On appeal, Young argues that the court erred in dismissing his complaint
because he properly alleged violations of the Due Process Clause and state constitutional
and statutory law. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “accept[ing] the factual allegations of the complaint as true and
constru[ing] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars,
LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In other words, “a plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to
show that he has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Upstate
Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018)
(cleaned up), vacated on other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020).
*
Young initially filed suit in state court, but the City and Foster removed the case
to the federal district court.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2247 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
Young argues on appeal that his complaint properly alleged a procedural due
process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. A plaintiff must adequately allege “three
elements” to state a viable procedural due process claim. Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head,
724 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2013). First, a plaintiff “must demonstrate that he had a
constitutionally cognizable life, liberty, or property interest.” Id. “Second, he must show
that the deprivation of that interest was caused by some form of state action.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Third, he must prove that the procedures employed were
constitutionally inadequate.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Young admits that he withdrew from the City’s grievance process prior to its
completion. Because Young failed to fully participate in the grievance process and his
allegations did not suggest that the process was fundamentally unfair, he could not show
that the challenged procedures were constitutionally deficient. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494
U.S. 113, 126 (1990) (noting that a due process violation “is not complete” when the
deprivation of a protected right occurs; rather, it is only complete when the government
“fails to provide due process”); Ashley v. N.L.R.B., 255 F. App’x 707, 710 (4th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) (“[T]o state a claim for failure to provide due process, a plaintiff must have
taken advantage of the processes that are available to him or her, unless those processes
are unavailable or patently inadequate.” (quoting Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d
Cir. 2000))). Accordingly, the district court correctly found that Young failed to allege a
viable due process claim under federal law. Further, because the “due process guarantees
of . . . the Constitution of Virginia are virtually identical to those of the United States
Constitution,” the court properly determined that Young’s allegations were also
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2247 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
insufficient to state a due process claim under state law. L.F. v. Breit, 736 S.E.2d 711, 721
n.7 (Va. 2013). Finally, while Young argues that he adequately alleged a claim that the
City’s grievance process violated Virginia statutory law and that the district court should
have afforded him leave to amend his complaint, we have reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court made no error in dismissing his complaint or denying leave to amend.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
4