Tani v. Lyman ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1711 KESS TANI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SALOMON BROTHERS REALTY CORPORATION/CITIGROUP, President and CEO; BRUCE WILLIAMS, President and CEO, C-Bass; FRIEDMAN AND MACFAYDEN, Law Firm; ALVIN E. FRIEDMAN, P.A., Trustee; KENNETH J. MACFAYDEN; DANIEL MENCHEL, Trustee; JAMES J. LOFTUS, Trustee; MICHAEL T. CANTRELL, Partner, Law Firm of Friedman & MacFayden, Defendants - Appellees. and DEBRA LYMAN, Assistant Vice President, Salomon Brothers Realty Corporation/CitiGroup; LARRY LITTON, President and CEO, Litton Loan Servicing, LP; LELA DEROUEN, Assistant Vice President, Litton Loan Servicing, LP; STEVE DRODDY, Mortgage Analyst, Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 03-2566-CCB) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kess Tani, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth John MacFayden, Michael Thomas Cantrell, FRIEDMAN & MACFAYDEN, PC, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey Barry Fisher, Traci Y. Gray, GIORDANO, BUSH, VILLAREALE & VAUGHAN, PA, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Martin Stuart Goldberg, THE FISHER LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Gregg Edward Viola, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Kess Tani appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in his action in which he asserted violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other claims arising from the Defendants’ initiation of foreclosure proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Tani v. Lyman, No. CA-03-2566-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2004; filed Mar. 2, 2005 & entered Mar. 3, 2005; May 31, 2005). 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 - 3 -