UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1521 QIHUI HUANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, and GEORGE MCDERMOTT; SHIELD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE, non-profit organization, Plaintiffs, v. RYAN L. HICKS, 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-00940-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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Richard T. Colaresi, KARPINSKI, COLARESI, & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. Hicks, No. 8:09-cv-00940-DCK (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2010). We deny Huang’s motion styled “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 grant Appellee Hicks’s motion to strike Huang’s appendix, deny Huang’s motion to rename the joint appendix as the appendix, grant Hicks’s motion to strike Huang’s reply briefs, and grant Huang’s motion “to withdraw and destroy” a document that she has attempted to file under seal. 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 2