Whether a district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim can be challenged when the court allegedly applied an improperly heightened pleading standard

on how the Court interpreted Rule 12(b)(6) and applied the established legal standards under that rule. The term “sufficiently alleged” has been a very subjective term in the context of 12(b)(6) motions, and here, the Court of Appeals wrongfully imposed a much higher standard that what is legally necessary in testing the sufficiency of Petitioner’s claims. Review is necessary to set a uniform standard as to what constitutes “sufficiently alleged.” . Over the last several years, and in particular, the last several months, the ongoing pattern of harassment, stalking, and other retaliatory behavior on the part of Respondents has caused Petitioner great emotional harm and distress. Petitioner has been damaged by all of the acts and conduct as described in the underlying action. Petitioner has lost income from work, has been followed and tracked, has had personal information stolen and used in unknown manner, has had to move multiple times, has been in fear, and has lost stability and security in her life, all due to the actions and misconduct on the part of Respondents and their agents. It is difficult to articulate Petitioner’s true experience on paper. . Extraordinary circumstances existed for Petitioner which prevented her from filing said Petition for Writ of Certiorari prior to the date of the instant Application. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant a 60-day extension of time to file the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Respectfully submitted, Hampton, VA 23666 Email: pablob981@yahoo.com Phone: 1.757.327.8499 Pro Se Petitioner USCA4 Appeal: 23-1259 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1259 SABRINA GIBSON, Plaintiff Appellant, Vv. THOMAS F. ROUPAS, JR.; PARR INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: October 23, 2023 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sabrina Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Taniya Donyale Reaves, LAW OFFICE OF TANIYA D. REAVES, PLLC, Browns Summit, North Carolina; Robert J. King, III, Kasi Wahlers Robinson, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1259 Doc: 16 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 2o0f2 PER CURIAM: Sabrina Gibson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denying as moot her request for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Gibson v. Roupas, No. 1:22cv-00517-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Feb. 9 & Mar. 15, 2023). 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 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SABRINA GIBSON, Plaintiff Petitioner, vs. THOMAS F. ROUPAS, JR. and PARR INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant