Qihui Huang v. Adam Maurice Tippett

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1520
QIHUI HUANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
SHIELD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE, non-profit
organization,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM MAURICE TIPPETT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00152-DKC)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Qihui Huang, Appellant Pro Se. John Edward Pueschel, WOMBLE,
CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Thomas Joseph Sawyer, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC,
Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Qihui Huang appeals the district court’s order denying
her motion to reconsider the court’s order dismissing her
complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Huang v. Tippett, No.
8:09-cv-00152-DCK (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2010). Furthermore, we deny
Huang’s motion “In reviewing a decision granting a motion to
dismiss, appellate court must accept as true all of the factual
allegations contained in the complaint,” (emphasis in original);
her motion “to permit Huang following U.S. Ct. of App. 4th Cir,
Rule 28(f) for she alleged statement of facts” could “include
exhibit, record, transcript, or appendix references showing the
sources of the facts stated,” and her motion “to supplement
record, and accept Huang formerly filed Appendixes and coming
exhibits.” We also deny Huang’s motion to rename the joint
appendix as the appendix, grant Tippett’s motion to strike the
appendix, and grant Huang’s motion to withdraw and destroy a
document purportedly filed under seal in this court. 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 of 3 --