PER CURIAM. Thomas T. Prousalis, Jr., an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). He also appeals the court’s denial of his motion for costs and legal fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. We review de novo a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Flood v. New Hanover County, 125 F.3d 249, 251 (4th Cir.1997). We accept the complainant’s well-pleaded allegations as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 113 a.1989) (<HOLDING>); Fox v. Deese, 234 Va. 412, 362 S.E.2d 699
holding damage to an attorneys livelihood is a natural consequence of disciplinary proceedings and as such cannot satisfy the special injury requirement of a malicious prosecution claim stemming from a civil proceeding holding the same for malicious prosecution holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists holding that a  1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution  is  similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor 