McCray v. Susquehanna Bank
This text of McCray v. Susquehanna Bank (McCray v. Susquehanna Bank) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2527
MILTON MCCRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SUSQUEHANNA BANK,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 04-1382-RDB)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald A. Rea, Kimberly Grimsley, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
McCray v. Susquehanna Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccray-v-susquehanna-bank-ca4-2005.