Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James Davenport v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 15-1677 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1677 Visitors: 38
Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1677 JAMES E. DAVENPORT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SALLIE MAE, INC.; SLM CORPORATION, Defendants – Appellees, and EQUIFAX, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN DATA CORP.; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-01475-PJM) Submitted: October 29,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1677 JAMES E. DAVENPORT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SALLIE MAE, INC.; SLM CORPORATION, Defendants – Appellees, and EQUIFAX, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN DATA CORP.; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-01475-PJM) Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Davenport, Appellant Pro Se. John S. Bolesta, Denise E. Giraudo, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James E. Davenport appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davenport v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-01475-PJM (D. Md. June 5, 2015). 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 3
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