Walsh v. Mitchell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2102
DAVID WALSH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MITCHELL; DONNA MITCHELL; DONNA MITCHELL, d/b/a
Stat Auto Wholesales; JOHN JELICH, d/b/a Threesome Auto
Sales; WILLIAM MITCHELL, d/b/a Xtreme Automotive Group;
DONNA MITCHELL, d/b/a Xtreme Automotive Group; DENNIS
MICHAEL ROGERS; AMY SIMS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE, d/b/a Threesome Auto Sales,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:08-cv-01897-DKC)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard W. Foster, Matthew Galin, FOSTER PC, Chicago, Illinois,
for Appellant. Marios Monopolis, J. Stephen Simms, SIMMS
SHOWERS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; John M.G. Murphy, LAW OFFICES
OF JOHN M.G. MURPHY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. John
Jelich, Dennis Michael Rogers, Amy Sims, Appellees pro se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
David Walsh appeals the district court’s order
dismissing counts one and two of his complaint for failure to
state a claim and dismissing the remaining counts pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2006). Walsh filed a complaint in the
district court alleging a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) violation, conspiracy to commit a
RICO violation, and related state law claims. The district
court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. We affirm
This court reviews de novo the grant of a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir.
2010), petition for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3480 (U.S. Feb. 8,
2011) (No. 10-1016). “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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Although in most cases, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do
not require “that a claimant set out in detail the facts upon
which he bases his claim . . . [the Rules] still require a
showing rather than a blanket assertion of entitlement to
relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). The showing made by the plaintiff
3
must be more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action” and more than “naked assertion[s] devoid of
further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949(internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the district
court’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss, this court
“must . . . accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint
as true.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994). This
court must also “construe factual allegations in the light most
favorable to [Walsh].” Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River
Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999).
After review of the record, we conclude that the
district court was correct in finding that Walsh failed to
sufficiently allege a pattern of racketeering activity and
therefore, his RICO claim failed. Because Walsh failed to state
a claim as to the violation of § 1962(c), the district court
also correctly found that his claim of conspiracy to violate
RICO pursuant to § 1962(d) was meritless.
The district court dismissed the remaining counts in
Walsh’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2006). A
district court enjoys discretion to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal
of all claims brought pursuant to its original jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2006); see also Hinson v. Norwest Fin.
S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir. 2001) (applying abuse of
4
discretion standard to district court’s order of remand of state
claims). In the interest of avoiding “[n]eedless decisions of
state law,” the Supreme Court has stated that, when “federal
claims are dismissed before trial . . . state claims should be
dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383
U.S. 715, 726 (1966). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Walsh’s
remaining state law claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
5