Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Seals v. General Revenue, 02-2031 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2031 Visitors: 65
Filed: Dec. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2031 G. MARK SEALS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION (GRC), an Ohio corporation; NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS (NES), an Ohio corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-118-5) Submitted: December 9, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2031 G. MARK SEALS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION (GRC), an Ohio corporation; NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS (NES), an Ohio corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-118-5) Submitted: December 9, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Mark Seals, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Todd Dreyer, GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, Cincinnati, Ohio; Paul Thomas Farell, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: G. Mark Seals appeals the dismissal of his civil action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, see 15 § U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (2000) (FDCPA), and the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, see W. Va. Code § 46A-2-125 (1999) (WVCCPA). We have reviewed the district court’s memorandum opinion and order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Seals v. General Revenue Corp., No. CA-01- 118-5 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 2002). Additionally, we deny Seals’ motion to correct his complaint as moot and 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer