`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 22-1282
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; J. ERIC
`BOYETTE, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation of the State of
`North Carolina; NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES;
`WAYNE GOODWIN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
`of the State of North Carolina,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants - Appellees.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
`Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cv-00296-WO-LPA)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: December 20, 2022
`
`
`
`Decided: December 22, 2022
`
`
`
`Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
`Judge.
`
`
`Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`
`
`ON BRIEF: James B. Wilson, Jr., JAMES BARRETT WILSON & ASSOCIATES,
`Winston Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, Sarah
`G. Boyce, Deputy Solicitor General, Kathryne E. Hathcock, Special Deputy Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
`for Appellees.
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`North Carolina Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (“NCSCV”), appeals
`
`the district court’s order dismissing its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a
`
`claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). NCSCV filed the
`
`complaint in state court, alleging that Defendants’ rejection of NCSCV’s specialty license
`
`plate design violated its rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. The design
`
`included the NCSCV’s insignia, which features a Confederate battle flag. Defendants
`
`removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court
`
`granted Defendants’ motion. On appeal, NCSCV reasserts its claims that Defendants’
`
`rejection of NCSCV’s specialty license plate design violated its rights under the First and
`
`Fourteenth Amendments. NCSCV also argues that North Carolina’s specialty license plate
`
`program expresses a state public policy that does not provide Defendants discretion to
`
`regulate license plate designs. We affirm.
`
`We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
`
`Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). “In conducting
`
`such a review, we accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable
`
`inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Dawson-Murdock v. Nat’l Counseling Grp., Inc.,
`
`931 F.3d 269, 274-75 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). We have thoroughly reviewed the
`
`briefs, joint appendix, and the entire record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
`
`affirm the district court’s judgment. N.C. Div. of Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v.
`
`N.C. Dep’t of Transp., No. 1:21-cv-00296-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2022). We
`
`dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
`
`process.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
