USCA4 Appeal: 23-1725 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1725 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 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, 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