Michael Kennedy v. Lendmark Financial Services, I
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-02667-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998746801]. Mailed to: Kennedy. [11-2011]
Appeal: 11-2011
Document: 10
Date Filed: 12/19/2011
Page: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2011
MICHAEL E. KENNEDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02667-RDB)
Submitted:
December 15, 2011
Decided:
December 19, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Edward Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se.
Brian L. Moffet,
Michael Vincent Ziccardi, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER
& HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-2011
Document: 10
Date Filed: 12/19/2011
Page: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Michael
order
granting
Edward
Lendmark
Kennedy
appeals
Financial
the
Services,
district
Inc.’s
court’s
motion
to
dismiss Kennedy’s action alleging violations of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2006),
the Maryland Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Md. Code Ann.,
Bus. Reg. §§ 7-101 et seq.; Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-201 et
seq. (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2010), and Maryland common law.
We
have
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
reversible
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
02667-RDB
Kennedy
(D.
v.
Md.
Lendmark
Sept.
15,
Fin.
Servs.,
2011).
We
Inc.,
No.
dispense
1:10-cv-
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?