STEELMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) because it failed to state a claim for defamation based on libel per se or libel per quod. Plaintiff's claims for negligent supervision were properly dismissed as derivative of his substantive claims.
Daniel Skinner (plaintiff) was enrolled at Wake Forest University School of Law, beginning in the fall of 2009. Plaintiff, who had received merit scholarships, was informed in June 2011 that the amount of his scholarships would be reduced by half because he had failed to remain in the top two-thirds of his law school class. Plaintiff disputed the reduction of his scholarships, arguing that the class rank requirement did not apply to certain scholarships. He pursued his challenge to the scholarship reduction over the following year. He first met with Melanie Nutt, then the school's Director of Admissions, who informed him that the condition applied to his entire financial aid award. He then appealed to Jay Shively, the Assistant Dean for Admissions and Financial Aid, who wrote to plaintiff in August 2011 informing plaintiff that all of his scholarships were subject to the requirement that he remain in the top two-thirds of his class. Plaintiff next submitted a grievance to Ann Gibbs, Associate Dean for Administrative and Student Services, who consulted with the law school's legal counsel. In September 2011 Dean Gibbs notified plaintiff that she and the school's legal counsel concluded that all of his scholarships were subject to the class rank requirement. Plaintiff's contentions were then reviewed by Law School Dean Blake Morant, who wrote to plaintiff on 21 November 2011 "comprehensively addressing" his arguments and reiterating that the condition applied to all of his scholarships. In April 2012, plaintiff met in person with Dean Morant and Suzanne Reynolds, the Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Dean Reynolds also held a second meeting with plaintiff to discuss the terms of his scholarships.
On 10 May 2012 Dean Reynolds hand-delivered a letter to plaintiff, in which she stated that she had "two purposes in this letter. One is to set out our position about your scholarship award. The other is to remind you of the code of conduct expected of students." The letter first reviewed the events surrounding plaintiff's challenge to the reduction of his scholarship, and responded to plaintiff's assertion that the law school's review of plaintiff's grievance did not comply with the requirements of the American Bar Association. The second part of the letter discussed plaintiff's behavior during his challenge to the reduction of his scholarships, stated her opinion that plaintiff tended to react with suspicion to those who disagreed with him, and reminded plaintiff of the need to comply with the university's code of conduct. Dean Reynolds provided Dean Morant and Associate Dean Gibbs with copies of her letter to plaintiff.
On 9 May 2013 plaintiff filed this lawsuit, asserting claims of defamation against Dean Reynolds, Wake Forest University, and Wake Forest School of Law; and claims of negligent supervision against Dean Morant and against Nathan Hatch and James Reid Morgan, the president and senior vice president of Wake Forest University. Plaintiff alleged that certain statements in the second part of Dean Reynolds's letter constituted libel per se and libel per quod, that the university and law school were vicariously liable for Dean Reynolds's libel, and that the other defendants were liable for failure to properly supervise Dean Reynolds.
On 24 May 2013 defendants filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and moving for dismissal of plaintiff's suit under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6). On 12 July 2013 the trial court entered an order granting defendants' motion and dismissing all of plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff appeals.
"The motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In ruling on the motion the allegations of the complaint must be viewed as admitted, and on that basis the court must determine as a matter of law whether the allegations state a claim for which relief may be granted. `[D]espite the liberal nature of the concept of notice pleading, a complaint must nonetheless state enough to give the substantive elements of at least some legally recognized claim or it is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).'" Malloy v. Preslar, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 745 S.E.2d 352, 355 (2013) (quoting Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 204, 254 S.E.2d 611, 626 (1979)). "In our review of the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), `[t]his Court must conduct a de novo review of the pleadings to determine their legal sufficiency and to determine whether the trial court's ruling on the motion to dismiss was correct.' While we treat plaintiffs' factual allegations as true, we may ignore plaintiffs' legal conclusions." McCrann v. Pinehurst, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 737 S.E.2d 771, 777 (quoting Leary v. N.C. Forest Prods., Inc., 157 N.C. App. 396, 400, 580 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2003), and citing Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 137, 209 S.E.2d 494, 499 (1974)), disc. review denied, ___ N.C. ___, 743 S.E.2d 221 (2013).
"`Libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace.'" Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Grp., LLC, 189 N.C. App. 731, 736, 659 S.E.2d 483, 486 (2008) (quoting Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 153 N.C. App. 25, 29, 568 S.E.2d 893, 898 (2002)) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in Nucor). Further:
Nucor, 189 N.C.App. at 736, 659 S.E.2d at 486-87 (quoting Renwick v. News and Observer and Renwick v. Greensboro News, 310 N.C. 312, 317-18, 312 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1984) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original), and Daniels v. Metro Magazine Holding Co., L.L.C., 179 N.C. App. 533, 539, 634 S.E.2d 586, 590 (2006), and citing Boyce, 153 N.C.App. at 31, 568 S.E.2d at 899).
Plaintiff's claims for libel are based on statements contained in the second part of Dean Reynolds's letter, which is reproduced below:
Plaintiff focuses his arguments primarily on the following sentence in Dean Reynolds's letter: "From my experience with you on this issue, if people disagree with you, you appear to assume that those persons are acting in bad faith and you accuse them of fraud and deceit." We conclude that this sentence, whether considered alone or in the context of the rest of the letter, does not constitute actionable libel.
The phrase "from my experience with you on this issue" is tantamount to "in my opinion" or "in my experience." The subjective nature of Dean Reynolds's statement is demonstrated by the rest of the sentence, which states her personal opinion that "if people disagree with you, you appear to assume that those persons are acting in bad faith and you accuse them of fraud and deceit." Plaintiff admits that he has accused various parties of fraud and deceit. Dean Reynolds's opinion that his accusations were motivated by suspicion of those who disagree with him is not a fact that is subject to being proven or disproved, and cannot constitute actionable libel per se.
In addition, the paragraph from which plaintiff extracts this sentence indicates that Dean Reynolds was providing guidance to plaintiff, then a student, regarding the standard of behavior to which he would be held if he chose to practice law:
Plaintiff, however, argues that the cited language from Dean Reynolds's letter is defamatory because it would "subject the plaintiff to ridicule, contempt, and disgrace," and "impeach[es] the plaintiff in his profession." Plaintiff does not support these conclusory allegations with alleged facts. Instead, plaintiff, who was a student at the time Dean Reynolds wrote to him, posits that if he graduated from law school, was licensed to practice law, and then, in a hypothetical case, engaged in baseless accusations, that he would then be subject to the negative consequences discussed by Dean Reynolds in her letter. As discussed above, the reaction of hypothetical parties to plaintiff's hypothetical future behavior is not a fact subject to proof, and thus cannot form the basis of a libel claim. Moreover, plaintiff's discussion of possible future occurrences constitutes the kind of "explanatory circumstances" that are not properly part of our analysis of whether a complaint states a valid claim for defamation. Aycock v. Padgett, 134 N.C. App. 164, 167, 516 S.E.2d 907, 909 (1999) (upholding dismissal of defamation claim where "there would seem to be a need for explanatory circumstances for the listener or reader here to know that plaintiff had committed an infamous crime").
Plaintiff also argues that other statements in Dean Reynolds's letter "implied defamatory facts." For example, he contends that the letter's warning that "we will not tolerate inappropriate conduct any longer" "implied that there were facts that would justify plaintiff's expulsion" from the university. However, the letter does not identify specific examples of "inappropriate conduct," does not refer to particular sanctions available to the university in response to "inappropriate conduct," and does not mention expulsion. Similarly, plaintiff alleges that Dean Reynolds's caution that he could be subject to contempt proceedings if he responded to a judge's disagreement with accusations of fraud and deceit implied that plaintiff had committed a crime. As discussed above, for statements to constitute libel per se, "the alleged defamatory statements must be construed only in the context of the document in which they are contained, `stripped of all insinuations, innuendo, colloquium and explanatory circumstances. The articles must be defamatory on its face within the four corners thereof.'" Nucor, 189 N.C.App. at 736, 659 S.E.2d at 488 (quoting Renwick at 317-18, 312 S.E.2d at 409 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff's arguments do not rest on the language of Dean Reynolds's letter, but on hypothetical scenarios and alleged "implications" of her statements. We reject these arguments, and hold that the letter did not defame plaintiff and that it does not support a valid claim for libel per se. Having reached this conclusion, we need not reach the parties' arguments regarding the letter's publication or whether it was privileged.
Plaintiff next argues that his complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support a claim for libel per quod. We do not agree.
Libel per quod "may be asserted when a publication is not obviously defamatory, but when considered in conjunction with innuendo, colloquium, and explanatory circumstances it becomes libelous." Nguyen v. Taylor, 200 N.C. App. 387, 392, 684 S.E.2d 470, 474 (2009) (citing Ellis v. Northern Star Co., 326 N.C. 219, 223, 388 S.E.2d 127, 130
The only "special damages" asserted in plaintiff's complaint consists of an allegation that the letter "contained false statements... causing specific damages, including but not limited to, lost wages and the expenses of mitigating the defamation[.]"
Plaintiff's claims for negligent supervision of Dean Reynolds are predicated on his allegation that Dean Reynolds's letter defamed him. Since we hold that plaintiff's claims for libel were properly dismissed, it follows that the derivative claims for negligent supervision were also subject to dismissal.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the trial court did not err and that its order dismissing plaintiff's complaint under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) should be
AFFIRMED.
Judges HUNTER and GEER concur.