plausibly be suggested by the facts alleged. Mylan Labs. Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A. First, Defendants move to dismiss the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants argue that the § 1983 claims against Defendant UNC are barred under the Eleventh Amendment. This amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State” or by foreign nationals. However, the immunity is not absolute. States may waive it, and Congress may override it when legislating pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, though it has rarely done so. See, e.g., Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the basic rule is that “in the
holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing  1983 holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983 holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause