the Hanson Company v. City of Richmond, Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1909
THE HANSON COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00147-DJN)
Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jason M. Krumbein, KRUMBEIN CONSUMER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Wirt P. Marks, IV, OFFICE OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
The Hanson Company (“THC”) appeals the district court’s order granting the City
of Richmond’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing as barred by the statute of
limitations THC’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging race discrimination in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), “accept[ing] the factual allegations of the complaint as true and constru[ing] them
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of
Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). “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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). In other words, “a plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to show that he has a
more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Upstate Forever v. Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up), vacated on
other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials submitted on appeal, and the
district court’s order, and we conclude that the district court properly found that THC’s
claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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

-- 2 of 2 --