USCA4 Appeal: 24-1781 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1781

SCOTT THATCH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., Defendant – Appellee.

-------------------------------------- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00336-JKW-DEM)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Thatch, Appellant Pro Se. Bridgett Lynn Stigger, FEDEX EXPRESS CORPORATION, Memphis, Tennessee; Melissa Yvonne York, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee. James P. Driscoll- USCA4 Appeal: 24-1781 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

MacEachron, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Phoenix, Arizona, for Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1781 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM: Scott Thatch appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Thatch’s amended complaint alleging he was discriminated and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Thatch, asserting that the district court applied incorrect standards in determining that Thatch did not suffer actionable adverse employment actions.

We have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court’s alternative and independently dispositive determination that Thatch failed to sufficiently bolster his claims with factual enhancement to plausibly allege the elements of his claims. See Holloway v. Maryland, 32 F.4th 293, 299 (4th Cir. 2022) (holding that to adequately allege “a claim for unlawful termination, a Title VII plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to raise a plausible inference that his employer discharged him because of [a protected characteristic]”); Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[N]aked assertions of wrongdoing necessitate some factual enhancement within the complaint to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Thatch v. FedEx Freight, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00336-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va. July 18, 2024). We dispense with oral argument

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1781 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED