Gregory Somers v. EEOC, No. 14-1506 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1506 GREGORY SOMERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, an agency of the United States of America; JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN; NICHOLAS M. INZEO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:13-cv-00257-MGL) Submitted: October 27, 2014 Decided: January 9, 2015 Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy J. Newton, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Marleigh D. Dover, Daniel Tenny, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Somers appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), denying his motion to amend, and dismissing all of his claims without prejudice. On appeal, Somers contends that the district court erred in ruling that his non-Title VII claims were preempted by Title VII, in ruling that he failed to state a claim for relief under Title VII, and in denying his motion to amend. We affirm. “On appeal from a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), [w]e review the district court’s factual findings with respect to jurisdiction for clear error and the legal conclusion that flows therefrom de novo.” In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotations omitted). “On review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we consider a case de novo,” evaluating “whether the plausible on complaint its states face.” a United claim States to ex relief that is rel. Oberg v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 745 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “Generally, we review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend for abuse of discretion,” “[b]ut where, as here, the district court denied such a motion on grounds of futility, 2 we employ the same standard that would apply to our review of a motion to dismiss.” United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotations omitted). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Somers v. EEOC, No. 6:13-cv-00257-MGL (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2014). We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
