McCray v. Susquehanna Bank

Fourth Circuit

McCray v. Susquehanna Bank

122 F. App'x 642

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 4, 2005·No. No. 04-2527·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Milton McCray appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McCray v. Susquehanna Bank, No. CA-04-1382-RDB (D. Md. filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 2004). 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

PER CURIAM:

Milton McCray appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McCray v. Susquehanna Bank, No. CA-04-1382-RDB (D. Md. filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 2004). 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

McCray v. Susquehanna Bank, 122 F. App'x 642 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

122 F. App'x 642 (McCray v. Susquehanna Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.