Opinion
No. 14-1309
08-18-2014
DEAN MOSTOFI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; TRANS UNION LLC, Defendants - Appellees, and ADVANTA BANK CORPORATION; EQUIFAX INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.
Dean Mostofi, Appellant Pro Se. Sandy David Baron, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, PA, Potomac, Maryland; Robert J. Schuckit, SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC, Zionsville, Indiana; Henry Mark Stichel, GOHN, HANKEY & STICHEL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:11-cv-02011-DKC) Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean Mostofi, Appellant Pro Se. Sandy David Baron, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, PA, Potomac, Maryland; Robert J. Schuckit, SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC, Zionsville, Indiana; Henry Mark Stichel, GOHN, HANKEY & STICHEL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Dean Mostofi appeals the district court order granting summary judgment to the Appellants and dismissing his complaint brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We affirm.
We "review de novo whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to [the non-moving party]." PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is properly granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We have reviewed the record and the district court's decision and agree, for the reasons cited by the district court, that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact. We have reviewed Mostofi's evidentiary challenges and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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