USCA4 Appeal: 24-1689 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1689

WILLIAM B. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AVRIL HAINES, Director of National Intelligence,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00221-MSN-IDD)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William B. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Mezger, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth A. Spavins, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1689 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

William B. Brown appeals the district court’s orders denying Brown’s Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative, for summary judgment, on Brown’s claims under the Age Discrimination

in Employment Act,

to 634. We have reviewed the record in

conjunction with the assignments of error Brown raises on appeal, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b),

and find no reversible error.

Brown correctly notes that the district court erred in stating that a plaintiff must

show age was a “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action. Dist. Ct. Mem. Op.

at 9, No. 1:23-cv-00221-MSN-IDD, ECF No. 45 (E.D. Va. July 10, 2024). That is not

true for federal employees. Babb v. Wilkie,

, 403-06 (2020). Even so, the

district court’s error did not affect its conclusion that Brown failed to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(b)(6). See Moore v. Frazier,

(4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing this court may affirm “on any ground

apparent on the record”). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009)

(holding that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s allegations must “state[] a

plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility

of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense,” and that the

plausibility standard is not “a probability requirement,” but “asks for more than a sheer

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” (internal quotation marks omitted));

Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart,

(4th Cir. 2012) (“At bottom, a

plaintiff must nudge [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible to resist

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1689 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

dismissal.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, Brown

v. Haines, No. 1:23-cv-00221-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2024; July 10, 2024).

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