Case 1:16-cv-00540-AJT-MSN Document 37 Filed 07/28/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID# 3265 Following the state court’s dismissal with prejudice, this Court ordered on September 9, 2016 that its stay be lifted for the sole purpose of allowing Defendants to renew their motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 17.] The Defendants filed the presently pending Motion on October 26, 2016, moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Loudoun County Circuit Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Davison’s Petition bars at least seven of the eight counts of the Amended Complaint, that all counts fail to state a claim for any First or Fourteenth Amendment violations cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 or violations of Virginia state defamation laws, and that, in any event, certain Defendants enjoy immunity from any such claims. II. LEGAL STANDARD A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Randall v. United States, 30 F.3d 518, 522 (4th Cir. 1994); Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1994). A claim should be dismissed “if, after accepting all wellpleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true . . . it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405 (4th Cir. 2001). In considering a motion to dismiss, “the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted,” Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted), and the court may consider exhibits attached to the complaint, Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F. 2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “the complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff.” Id.; see also Bd. of Trustees v. Sullivant Ave. Props., LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 473, 475 (E.D. Va. 2007). In addition, a motion to dismiss must be assessed in light of Rule 8’s liberal pleading standards, 9