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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-2011 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/19/2011 Page: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2011 MICHAEL E. KENNEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?