Jason Diedrich v. City of Newport News, Virginia, No. 15-2060 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2060 JASON LEON DIEDRICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; JAMES M. BOUREY; RICHARD W. MYERS; YVONNE M. MANNING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:15-cv-00002-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: April 29, 2016 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 21, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin P. Shea, KEVIN P. SHEA, ATTORNEY–AT-LAW, INC., Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Darlene P. Bradberry, Christopher M. Midgley, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jason dismissing Leon his Diedrich civil appeals action § 1983 (2012) and state law. (1) whether demotion the claim district was barred the alleging district claims court’s under 42 order U.S.C. On appeal he raises three issues: court by erred res by finding judicata; (2) that his whether the district court erred by ruling that his personnel records claim was time barred; and (3) whether the district court erred by denying him a hearing on the motion to dismiss. We review de novo the district court’s granting of Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). Like the district court, we must take the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus. Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Diedrich v. City of Newport News, No. 4:15-cv-00002-RAJ- LRL (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2015); see Cray Commc’ns, Inc. v. Novatel Computr Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting 2 that there is no absolute requirement that a ruling on a summary motion be preceded by a hearing). 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 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.