We vacate our prior opinion in this case issued on June 23, 2005, and substitute in its place the following opinion.
Deborah E. Foster appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her claims against the defendants, Savannah Communication (“SC”), the United States Army (“Army”), McLlanham Auto-motives, Inc. (“McLlanham”), and A & E Electronic Company (“A & E”).1 Foster brought her claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729, et seq. Specifically, she alleged that she had been *907constructively discharged by her employer, the Army, for reporting fraud to her supervisors in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), which is the whistleblower provision of the FCA. She also apparently sought to bring a qui tam action against the remaining three defendants (“the contractor defendants”), who were allegedly involved in the fraud, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).
Foster raises two arguments on appeal. First, she argues that the district court erred in finding that her complaint was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Foster argues that she did her best to ensure that the complaint was filed in a timely manner. She notes that she mailed her complaint to the district court (admittedly with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in lieu of the filing fee) two days before the statute of limitations expired and that the district court received it one day before it expired.
Second, Foster argues that the district court erred by alternatively dismissing her complaint for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of § 3730(b)(2) for qui tam actions. She notes in particular that she “had no knowledge of sealing a case.” Each argument is addressed in turn.2
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 363 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir.2004). A motion to dismiss is granted only when the movant demonstrates “beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim that would entitle [her] to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “The standard of review for a motion to dismiss is the same for the appellate court as it was for the trial court.” Spain, 363 F.3d at 1187 (citation omitted).
Failure to Comply with Statute of Limitations
The applicable limitation period for an action brought under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 is no “more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed.” 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1). Generally, a statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense that must be pled. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). However, failure to comply with the statute of limitations may be raised on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), when failure to comply with the statute of limitations is plain on the face of the complaint. AVCO Corp. v. Precision Air Parts, Inc., 676 F.2d 494, 495 (11th Cir.1982).
In her complaint, Foster alleged that she complained of fraud and was constructively discharged by the Army on July 23, 1997. Foster could not have witnessed or had knowledge of any alleged fraudulent activity, such as submission of false claims, after that date. The record reflects that Foster’s complaint was not filed until August 8, 2003, more than six years after the date on which her employment ended. Consequently, all of the acts of which Foster claims the contractor defendants took part occurred more than six years before Foster filed her complaint. Furthermore, Foster concedes that her complaint is untimely in light of the limitation period. Therefore, to the extent that Foster sought to bring a qui tam action against the contractor defendants, the district *908court did not err in finding that her complaint was barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth at § 3731(b)(1).
To the extent that Foster sought relief under the anti-retaliation provision of the FCA, the most closely analogous state limitations period, rather than the six-year statute of limitations in the FCA, applies to her claim. See Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, — U.S. —, —, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 2446, — L.Ed.2d —, — (2005). We do not address that issue here, however, because Foster never suggests, and our de novo review does not reveal, that the applicable period would be more than six years. Moreover, as noted above, Foster concedes that her filing was outside this period. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of her retaliation claim against the Army for failure to comply with the statute of limitations.
Failure to Comply with Procedural Requirements
To maintain a qui tam action under the FCA, a private party must satisfy several procedural requirements. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B). Specifically, a private party must first bring the action in the name of the United States government and must have served upon the government “[a] copy of the complaint and written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information the person possesses.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(1) and (b)(2). The complaint also must be filed “in camera, [and] shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders.” § 3730(b)(2). Within 60 days of service, the government must choose either to “intervene and proceed with the action,” or notify the court that it declines to intervene, in which case the individual obtains the right to proceed with the qui tam action. § 3730(b)(4).
It is apparent from the face of Foster’s complaint that she did not comply with any of the statutory requirements before filing her qui tam action. Foster’s claims against the three contractor defendants were brought directly in the district court, were brought in her name, and were not filed under seal. Foster concedes her noncompliance with the procedural requirements of the FCA. Accordingly, after considering the parties’ contentions, we find nó abuse of discretion in the district court’s finding that she failed to comply with the procedural filing requirements for qui tam actions under the FCA as to the contractor defendants.3
We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing Foster’s complaint for failure to file within the statute of limitations, and, alternatively, for failure to comply with the procedural filing requirements of § 3730(b)(2).
AFFIRMED.