Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Estate of Ward v. Trans Union Corp, 07-1971 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1971 Visitors: 410
Filed: Feb. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1971 THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA BLALOCK WARD; JOSEPH M. WARD, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. David W. Daniel, Magistrate Judge. (4:04-cv-00088-DAN) Submitted: January 26, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1971 THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA BLALOCK WARD; JOSEPH M. WARD, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. David W. Daniel, Magistrate Judge. (4:04-cv-00088-DAN) Submitted: January 26, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. The Estate of Patricia Blalock Ward, Joseph M. Ward, Appellants Pro Se. Paul L. Myers, STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP, Frisco, Texas; Joseph Walter Williford, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The Estate of Patricia Blalock Ward and Joseph M. Ward appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Trans Union Corporation on Appellants’ claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681(u) (2006), and state law claims for defamation, interference with contractual relations, and false light invasion of privacy. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Estate of Ward v. Trans Union Corp., No. 4:04-cv-00088-DAN (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2007). 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
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