Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Murray v. Trans, 96-1385 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1385 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Fred L. Murray on brief pro se., ______________, Mark E. Kogan, Bruce S. Luckman, Marion, Satzberg, Trichon , ______________ _________________ _____________________________, Kogan, P.C. and Robinson Cole on brief for appellee.parties' claims on appeal.the district court is summarily affirmed.
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





____________________


No. 96-1385

FRED L. MURRAY, JR.,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TRANS UNION CORPORATION,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Fred L. Murray on brief pro se. ______________
Mark E. Kogan, Bruce S. Luckman, Marion, Satzberg, Trichon & ______________ _________________ _____________________________
Kogan, P.C. and Robinson & Cole on brief for appellee. ___________ _______________


____________________

December 3, 1996
___________________













Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Fred L. Murray appeals a __________ ___ __

district court order that granted defendant Trans Union

Corporation summary judgment on Murray's complaint for

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.

1681e(b) and 1681i(a) and (c), the Equal Credit Opportunity

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691-1691f, and various common law claims.

This court has thoroughly reviewed the record and the

parties' claims on appeal. We agree that summary judgment

was properly entered for the reasons stated in the district

court's memorandum and order.1 Accordingly, the judgment of 1

the district court is summarily affirmed. See Local Rule _________ ________ ___

27.1. Murray's motion for sanctions, motion to compel and

continue discovery, and motion to amend district court

complaint and add supplemental pleading are denied. ______




















____________________

1 We add that the record fails to establish a violation of 1
15 U.S.C. 1681i.

-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