Court Opinion

ID: 9403980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:01:06.946256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.516427
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1666      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1666

        DARRELL GAEBEL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00141-LMB-JFA)

        Submitted: May 2, 2023                                            Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Teresa Taylor, Jude Nwaokobia, BUTZEL LONG, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
        for Appellant. Heather M. Fields, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH
        LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Ian M. Dumain, CYRULNIK FATTARUSO LLP, New York,
        New York, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1666     Doc: 23         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Darrell Gaebel appeals the district court’s order dismissing for failure to state a

        claim his amended complaint for defamation and defamation per se, breach of contract,

        and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Gaebel v. U.S. Polo Ass’n, No. 1:22-cv-00141-

        LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. May 12, 2022). 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

                                                   2