Nash v. Braswell Foods, No. 3:2016cv00592 - Document 8 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 2/28/2017. (sbea, )
Download PDF
Nash v. Braswell Foods Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division RICARDO NASH, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:16cv592 BRASWELL FOODS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Braswell Foods' ("Braswell") Motion to Dismiss for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction" pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the "Motion to Dismiss"). (ECF No. 4.) Braswell provided Plaintiff Ricardo Nash, who proceeds pro se, with appropriate notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). (Mot. Dismiss 1n.l, ECF No. 4.)' Nash did not respond, and the time to do so has expired. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not ' Braswell also properly filed two exhibits with itsMotion to Dismiss: (1) a copy of Nash's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC Charge"); and, (2) a copy of the EEOC's Dismissal and Notice of Rights, commonly called a "Right to Sue" letter. The Court will consider these exhibits in ruling on Braswell's Motion to Dismiss because Nash referred to them in his Complaint, they are integral to his claim, and neither party disputes their authenticity. Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App'x 395, 39697 (4th Cir. 2006) ("[A] court may consider ... documents central to plaintiffs claim[] and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint [without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment] so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed.").