Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP

Fourth Circuit

Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP

485 F. App'x 624

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1536

StatusPublished

This text of 485 F. App'x 624 (Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP, 485 F. App'x 624 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Benzing appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants on his Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Benzing does not challenge in his informal brief the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the additional claims in his com[625]*625plaint, he has forfeited appellate review of that order. Turning to the FCRA claim, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP, No. 5:10-cv-00533-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2012 & Mar. 23, 2012). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Benzing appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants on his Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Benzing does not challenge in his informal brief the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the additional claims in his com[625]*625plaint, he has forfeited appellate review of that order. Turning to the FCRA claim, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Benzing v. Tharrington-Smith, LLP, No. 5:10-cv-00533-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2012 & Mar. 23, 2012). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 F. App'x 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benzing-v-tharrington-smith-llp-ca4-2012.