Stansbury v. McDonald's Corp.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1212
WILLIAM CLAYTON STANSBURY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
TIMOTHY BURGE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01-
2249-MJG)
Submitted: May 14, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Clayton Stansbury, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph John
Bottiglieri, Felicity Ann McGrath, BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH &
CROCIATA, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
William Clayton Stansbury, Jr. appeals the district court’s
order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint alleging
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).
Generally, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will
not be granted unless it is certain the plaintiff could prove no
set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Id.With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court’s
order on the reasoning of its memorandum opinion. Stansbury v.
McDonald’s Corp., No. CA-01-2249-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 18, 2002). 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
3