Scarborough v. Frederick Cnty. Sch. Bd. dissenting voices on social media." (See id. ¶¶ 6– 49.) Scarborough names Edwards, Sovine, and Angelo in their official capacities. (Id. ¶ 4.) banning her—repeated violations of FCSB's terms and conditions—is false, as the page had never published any terms and conditions. (Id. ¶ 19.) Scarborough alleges the following facts in support of these three § 1983 claims. She asserts that FCSB maintains a Facebook page called "Frederick County Public Schools ," which was, at the relevant time, registered as a "Government Organization."2 (Id. ¶¶ 9–11.) According to According to Scarborough, approximately one month after she filed this suit, Superintendents Sovine and Angelo blocked her from their official Twitter accounts. (Id. ¶¶ 20–21.) Scarborough alleges that Sovine and Angelo administer these Twitter accounts in their official capacities as the chief administrators of FCPS. (Id. ) Scarborough further claims that, "[o]n the same day [she] was blocked," she lodged a complaint with FCSB's attorney and was "unblocked" from Sovine's and Angelo's Twitter accounts. (Id. ) Scarborough, this Facebook page is open to the general public and invites anyone to post comments on it. (Id. ¶ 12.) Scarborough further asserts that the Facebook page "places no restrictions on what users may post," and that "users may freely post their sentiments on all subjects." (Id. ¶ 13.) 2 In the Second Scarborough Amended alleges that Complaint, the FCPS Facebook page "has been altered since the lawsuit began." (Id. ¶ 11.) Apparently, the FCPS Facebook page is no longer registered as a "Government Organization." (Id. ) 575 517 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Va. 2021) In September 2020, Scarborough allegedly posted comments on the FCPS Facebook page "concerning the school's re-opening, COVID-19 masks, disability rights, and child abuse." (Id. ¶ 15.) Scarborough alleges that "[a]s a direct result of" her comments, Defendants "censored" her by deleting her comments and blocking her ability to make further comments. (Id. ¶ 16.) Specifically, Scarborough alleges that Edwards was responsible for deleting her comments and blocking her from the Facebook page. (Id. ¶ 17.) On September 8, 2020, Edwards, allegedly "using a fake Facebook user name" registered to a man named "Steve Cornwell," sent a private message to Scarborough stating: "Ms. Scarborough—We have decided to ban you from the FCPS Facebook page for continued violations of our terms and conditions." (Id. ¶ 18.) Scarborough further *575 avers that Cornwell's (or Edwards's) purported reason for MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 547, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's allegations "allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. While a complaint does not need "detailed factual allegations," complaints merely offering "labels and conclusions," "naked assertion[s] devoid of ‘further factual enhancement," or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). To allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim, federal courts are obligated to construe pro se pleadings liberally. See, e.g., Boag v. MacDougall , 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982). Moreover, "[l]iberal construction of the pleadings is particularly 3