Cameron Thomaz v. It's My Party, Incorporated, No. 13-1620 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1620 CAMERON JIBRIL THOMAZ, Plaintiff Appellant, v. IT'S MY PARTY, INCORPORATED, d/b/a I.M.P., Incorporated, Defendant Appellee, and SETH HURWITZ, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00009-JCC-TRJ) Submitted: November 27, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey L. Marks, Lauren T. Rogers, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. L. Barrett Boss, S. Rebecca Brodey, COZEN O CONNOR, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cameron order granting Jibril the Thomaz Appellee s appeals motion the and district court s dismissing Thomaz complaint alleging breach of contract pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). under Rule We review de novo a district court s dismissal 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Kensington Volunteer Fire Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint Dep t v. To survive must contain sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. (2007). Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 Moreover, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider documents attached to the complaint or the motion to dismiss so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic. Kensington, 684 F.3d at 467 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, [w]e are not limited to evaluation of the grounds decision, record. 2005). but offered may by affirm the on district any court grounds to support apparent from its the United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not 2 err in dismissing Thomaz claim for breach of contract for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3