UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1978

AHMED ELDIB, D.D.S.,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, L.L.C., d/b/a Bass Pro Shops 

Outdoor World; JOHN DOE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:15-cv-00118-JAG)

Submitted: April 26, 2016 Decided: July 18, 2016

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin P. Shea, KEVIN P. SHEA, Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. 

James W. Walker, J. Brandon Sieg, VANDEVENTER BLACK, LLP, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Ahmed Eldib appeals the district court’s order granting 

Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC’s (“Bass Pro”) motion to dismiss his 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Eldib argues that the facts alleged in his complaint were 

sufficient for a jury to conclude that Bass Pro’s behavior was 

extreme and outrageous, and that Eldib suffered severe emotional 

distress. “Because the district court dismissed [Eldib’s]

claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for 

failure to state a claim, we review legal issues de novo and 

treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true.” Nemphos v. 

Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., 775 F.3d 616, 617 (4th Cir. 2015).

In Virginia, to establish liability for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove: 

“(1) the wrongdoer’s conduct was intentional or reckless; 

(2) the conduct was outrageous and intolerable; (3) there was a 

causal connection between the wrongdoer’s conduct and the 

emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.” 

Harris v. Kreutzer, 624 S.E.2d 24, 33 (Va. 2006). To satisfy 

the second element, it is not enough that the conduct is

“[i]nsensitive and demeaning”; rather, the conduct must be “so 

outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go 

beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as 
3

atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” 

Id. (quoting Russo v. White, 400 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Va. 1991)).

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Eldib, he 

encountered unhelpful, perhaps incompetent, employees who 

persisted in their incorrect belief that they were unable to 

sell assault rifles to non-citizens. This conduct does not rise

above the level of “mere insults, indignities, threats,

annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities,” 

Gaiters v. Lynn, 831 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1987) (quoting 

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, cmt. d (1965)), and is less 

“outrageous” than the behavior exhibited by the defendant in 

Kreutzer, 624 S.E.2d at 33-34. Furthermore, the comments were 

not “manifestly disparaging or demeaning” of Eldib’s ethnicity 

or national origin. Gaiters, 831 F.2d at 54. Under these 

circumstances, the district court correctly determined that 

Eldib failed to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the 

“outrageous and intolerable” requirement of intentional 

infliction of emotional distress. Kreutzer, 624 S.E.2d at 33.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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