Filed: Dec. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2121 DONALD C. MARRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROSSCHECK, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-04-147) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald C. Marro, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2121 DONALD C. MARRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROSSCHECK, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-04-147) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald C. Marro, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2121 DONALD C. MARRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CROSSCHECK, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-04-147) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald C. Marro, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Saindon Dudley, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald C. Marro appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state claims for defamation and for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Marro v. Crosscheck, Inc., No. CA-04- 147 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 6, 2004 & entered Aug. 11, 2004). 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 - 2 -