Jason Leon Diedrich v. City of Newport News, Virginia; James M. Bourey; Richard W. Myers; Yvonne M. Manning

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: June 21, 2016
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jason Leon Diedrich appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012) and state law. On appeal he raises three issues:
(1) whether the district court erred by finding that his
demotion claim was barred by res judicata; (2) 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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --