Gloria Carr v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1725
GLORIA CARR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LLOYD J. AUSTIN, The Secretary of Defense;
CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, Secretary of the Army,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00245-D)
Submitted: May 14, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark L. Hayes, LAW OFFICE OF MARK L. HAYES, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gloria Carr appeals the district court’s order dismissing her race discrimination
claim raised pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. We review de novo a district court’s order granting a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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). After reviewing the amended
complaint, we agree with the district court that Carr’s complaint was too conclusory for a
court to reasonably infer that Carr’s demotion was racially motivated. See Bing v. Brivo
Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 608-09, 617-18 (4th Cir. 2020); McCleary-Evans, 780 F.3d at
583-86.
Therefore, 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 --