Gonzales v. State of Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene , 28 F. App'x 324 ( 2002 )
Menu:
-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT EUSEBIO P. GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF No. 01-1516 HEALTH & MENTAL HYGIENE; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-3557-S) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 20, 2002 Before WILKINS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Herbert R. O’Conor, III, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Cynthia Peltzman, Assis- tant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 2 GONZALES v. STATE OF MARYLAND Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Eusebio P. Gonzales, M.D., appeals the district court’s order grant- ing the collective motion to dismiss of the State of Maryland and the State of Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, and dis- missing with prejudice Gonzales’ employment discrimination action alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, retaliation, civil conspiracy, and constructive discharge. The standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo. Korb v. Lehman,
919 F.2d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 1990). In general, such a dismissal should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support his claim and entitle him to relief. In con- sidering a motion to dismiss, the court should accept as true all well- pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., De Sole v. United States,
947 F.2d 1169, 1171 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the materials presented in the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gonzales v. Maryland Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. CA- 00-3557-S (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Document Info
Docket Number: 01-1516
Citation Numbers: 28 F. App'x 324
Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Wilkins
Filed Date: 2/20/2002
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/6/2023