UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2438 LAWRENCE A. WAY; RICHARD D. STOVER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THOMAS D. BARR; THE CALLAHAN & GIBBONS GROUP; MARK ALAN BLAHNIK; U. S. DATALINK, INCORPO- RATED; EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES; TRW, INCORPORATED; TRANS UNION CORPORATION; O'CONNELL ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2519-HAR) Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997 Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence A. Way, Richard D. Stover, Appellants Pro Se. Andrew Jay Graham, Kevin Francis Arthur, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; James Patrick Nolan, COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland; Kim J. Askew, HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas; Thomas D. Rooney, Lisa A. Kainec, MILLISOR & NOBIL, Cleveland, Ohio; Thomas Moss Wood, IV, NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Sandy David Baron, GOLDSTEIN & BARON, CHARTERED, College Park, Maryland; Jerome Richard Doak, JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, Dallas, Texas; Emmett Francis McGee, Jr., Patricia Ann Sumner, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lawrence A. Way and Richard Stover appeal the district court's order dismissing their claims stemming from the investigations of their backgrounds. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Way v. Barr, No. CA-94-2519-HAR (D. Md. May 17 & 24, 1995; June 15 & 22, 1995; July 5, 1995). We further deny Appellants' motion to correct or modify the record on appeal. 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