Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kant v. Bregman Berbert, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Chander and Ashima Kant's civil rights complaint against Bregman, Berbert & Schwartz, L.L.C. for failure to state a claim. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and found that while it must accept the facts alleged as true, the Kants only made conclusory allegations without providing any supporting facts, and therefore failed to state a valid claim. As such, the district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-01-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-1886

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Chander and Ashima Kant's civil rights complaint against Bregman, Berbert & Schwartz, L.L.C. for failure to state a claim. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and found that while it must accept the facts alleged as true, the Kants only made conclusory allegations without providing any supporting facts, and therefore failed to state a valid claim. As such, the district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Kant v. Bregman Berbert, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Chander and Ashima Kant's civil rights complaint against Bregman, Berbert & Schwartz, L.L.C. for failure to state a claim. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and found that while it must accept the facts alleged as true, the Kants only made conclusory allegations without providing any supporting facts, and therefore failed to state a valid claim. As such, the district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-1886

    CHANDER KANT; ASHIMA K. KANT,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    BREGMAN, BERBERT & SCHWARTZ, L.L.C.,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    William M. Nickerson, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-2371-WMN)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 2003

    Decided:

    January 9, 2004

    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Chander Kant and Ashima K. Kant, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Morton
    Bregman, BREGMAN, BERBERT & SCHWARTZ, Bethesda, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Chander and Ashima Kant appeal the district court's order
    dismissing their civil rights complaint for failure to state a
    claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6).

    We review a district court's dismissal for failure to

    state a claim de novo.

    Duckworth v. State Admin. Bd. of Election

    Laws, 332 F.3d 769, 772 (4th Cir. 2003).

    We must accept as true

    the facts alleged in the complaint, view them in the light most
    favorable

    to

    the

    plaintiff,

    and

    recognize

    that

    dismissal

    is

    inappropriate unless it appears beyond certainty that the plaintiff


    would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could
    be proved in support of the claim.
    45-46

    (1957).

    Liberally

    Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

    construing

    the

    Kants

    complaint

    in

    compliance with Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), we


    find that they assert conclusory allegations, unsupported by any
    averment of facts.

    Thus, we find that the district court did not

    err by dismissing the Kants complaint for failure to state a claim


    pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
    court's order.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like