DocketNumber: 21-1752
Filed Date: 10/14/2022
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/17/2022
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1752 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1752 ATHENA CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM SMITH, III; RE CONSTRUCITON, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00396-AJT-TCB) Submitted: September 28, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022 Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Milton C. Johns, EXECUTIVE LAW PARTNERS, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Glenn A. Ellis, FREIWALD LAW, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Catherine H. Dorsey, BARON & BUDD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1752 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Athena Construction Group, Inc., appeals the district court’s order dismissing its complaint against William Smith, III, and RE Construction, LLC, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,18 U.S.C. § 1030
, the Virginia Computer Crimes Act,Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-152.1
to 18.2-152.16 (2022), and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act,Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-336
to 59.1-343 (2022), and asserting claims for business conspiracy underVa. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-499
, 18.2-500 (2022), and common law conspiracy. 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 in 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and conclude the district court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 2