Yang v. Lee ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2169
EDWARD D. YANG; HELEN BAO HONG YANG,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
HOLDEN H. LEE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
01-257-PJM)
Submitted: March 5, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Christopher Belcher, Oxon Hill, Maryland, for Appellant.
Douglas J. Behr, Frank J. Vitolo, Luther L. Hajek, KELLER &
HECKMAN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward and Helen Bao Hong Yang (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the
district court’s order dismissing their complaint against Holden
Lee in their action for intentional misrepresentation, breach of
contract, defamation, extortion, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. We affirm.
We review a district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted de novo. Flood v. New Hanover County, 125 F.3d 249, 251
(4th Cir. 1997). In considering a motion to dismiss, we accept the
complainant’s well-pleaded allegations as true and view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).
With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court’s
order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint based upon the reasoning of
its memorandum opinion. See Yang v. Lee, 163 F. Supp.2d 554 (D.
Md. 2001). We also deny Lee’s motion for sanctions. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2