Filed: Dec. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1135 BRYANT MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIGHTSTORM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; JAMES CAMERON; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-03644-RWT) Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1135 BRYANT MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LIGHTSTORM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; JAMES CAMERON; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-03644-RWT) Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1135
BRYANT MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIGHTSTORM ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; JAMES CAMERON; TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cv-03644-RWT)
Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce S. Rogow, Tara A. Campion, BRUCE S. ROGOW, PA, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Bradley A. Thomas, THE LAW OFFICE OF
BRADLEY A. THOMAS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Robert H.
Rotstein, MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP, Los Angeles,
California, J. Matthew Williams, MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP
LLP, Washington, D.C, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Moore appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Moore’s
claims of copyright infringement. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See generally Moore v.
Lightstorm Entm’t, Inc.,
992 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D. Md. 2014). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2