Summary
holding 148 calls over a 13-month-period without proof of viciousness insufficient to state a claim
Summary of this case from McNaney v. Am. Collections Enter.Opinion
No. 12-1043
08-01-2012
EDWARD G. SHLIKAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES; PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INCORPORATED; DIVERSIFIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JEFFREY CARLINO; OSI EDUCATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SALLIE MAE, INCORPORATED; GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION GUARANTY CORPORATION; UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants - Appellees, and HEMAR; NORWEST, INCORPORATED; WELLS FARGO, INCORPORATED; GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; MARYLAND STATE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Defendants.
Edward G. Shlikas, Appellant Pro Se. Rand Lewis Gelber, LAW OFFICES OF RAND L. GELBER, Rockville, Maryland; Jonathan Edward Claiborne, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-02106-WDQ) Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward G. Shlikas, Appellant Pro Se. Rand Lewis Gelber, LAW OFFICES OF RAND L. GELBER, Rockville, Maryland; Jonathan Edward Claiborne, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Edward G. Shlikas appeals from the district court's orders entering judgment in favor of the Defendants on his civil action and denying, in part, his motion for attorney fees and costs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shlikas v. Arrow Fin. Servs., No. 1:06-cv-02106-WDQ (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2007; June 5, 2008; May 4, 2009; Aug. 26, 2010; Nov. 16, 2011). 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