Heather Byam v. OCEAN ENTERPRISE 589, LLC, d/b/a Ocean Downs Casino

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --