Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Metlife Group, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1604
JAY CLOGG REALTY GROUP, INC.; STANLEY ADOFF; AGV SPORTS
GROUP, INC.; MICHAEL PARROTTE; STEVEN G. BERRY; BREY CORP.;
DEBRA COLBERT; GERMANTOWN COPY CENTER, INC.; GOLD LEINS &
ADOFF; PEGGY HARRIS; HOLDEN ROGERS; KATHLYNNE RAMIREZ
ESQUIRE LLC; ANDREW RENGARTS; STEPHEN A. SHECHTEL; JAMES J.
TEMPLE JR. PA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JAY CLOGG; ELMECO ENGINEERING, INC.; TIBOR SARKADY; MICHAEL
BREY; JOHNNY R. GARZA; KENSINGTON PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC.;
STANLEY SHAPIRO; JAMES J. TEMPLE, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; METLIFE GROUP, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00493-DKC)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: February 3, 2017
Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Stephen H. Ring, STEPHEN H. RING, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellants. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Daniel T. Stabile, SHUTTS &
BOWEN LLP, Miami, Florida, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) request, and granting summary judgment in
favor of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife Group,
Inc., on Plaintiffs’ claims, brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 227 (West 2014 & Supp.
2016), and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Md.
Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-3201 to 14-3202 (West 2013). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jay
Clogg Realty Grp., Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 8:15-cv-
00493-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2016; May 2, 2016). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --