Heather Byam v. Ocean Enterprise 589, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2024
• Docket: 23-1193
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1193 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1193

HEATHER BYAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OCEAN ENTERPRISE 589, LLC, d/b/a Ocean Downs Casino,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01617-RDB)

Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 26, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Robin R. Cockey, Ashley A. Bosché, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, PC, Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert L. Ferguson, Jr., James K. Howard, FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & BALLEW, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1193 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Heather Byam appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to

dismiss her state law claim of wrongful interference with economic relations. * We review

the grant of a defendant’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de novo,

drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Williams v. Kincaid, 45 F.4th

759, 765 (4th Cir. 2022). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

While the court must accept well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all reasonable

inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, it is not required to accept as true allegations that are

merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Martin v.

Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017).

We agree with the district court that Byam failed to plead any facts to support her

claim that the Defendant’s employee intended to interfere with Byam’s employment

contract with her employer and that the alleged interfering act was wrongful or unlawful.

See Ronald M. Sharrow, Chartered v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 511 A.2d 492, 498

(Md. App. Ct. 1986) (noting that plaintiff must prove that “interference was wrongful and

without justification”). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and relevant materials and

* The district court also dismissed Byam’s invasion of privacy and wrongful publication of private information claims; however, she does not pursue these claims on appeal. Thus, Byam has forfeited appellate review of these two claims. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1193 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Byam v. Ocean

Enter. 589, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01617-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2023). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED