Obeya v. British School of Washington

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1204
MICHAEL U. OBEYA, Individually and t/a Myke
Services,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BRITISH SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-01-3158-MJG)
Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fatai A. Suleman, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for
Appellant. Alan M. Schwartz, Columbia, Maryland; Geoffrey H.
Genth, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael U. Obeya appeals a district court judgment
granting summary judgment to the British School of Washington
(“School”) and dismissing his complaint raising allegations under
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) and charging the School with tortious
interference with contract and unjust enrichment.* Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). All factual
evidence, and all justifiable inferences drawn therefrom, must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
However, the non-moving party may not rely upon mere allegations.
Rather, supported by affidavits or other verified evidence, his
response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Cray Communications,
*
Obeya does not challenge the district court’s early dismissal
of the unjust enrichment claim.
- 2 -
Inc. v. Novatel Computer Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 393-94 (4th Cir.
1994).
We affirm the judgment on the reasoning of the district
court. See Obeya v. British Sch. of Wash., No. CA-01-3158-MJG (D.
Md. Jan. 7, 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
- 3 -