Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John BURNS Plaintiff-Appellant v. GRISHAM LAW FIRM; Audrianna Grisham, P.A. Defendants-Appellees Fort Roots Federal Credit Union; John and Jane Does, 1-100 Defendants
    No. 15-3884
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 29, 2016
    Filed: September 1, 2016
    Victoria Leigh, Leigh Law Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Robert L. Henry, III, Robert Kenny McCulloch, Barber Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

John Burns appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Aud-rianna Grisham, P.A. (Grisham), in his action alleging Grisham violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, by making misrepresentations while pursuing a state-court debt-collection proceeding against Burns, and by attempting to collect attorney’s fees not authorized by the agreement creating the debt.

We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Richmond v. Higgins, 435 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo). Burns did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Grisham’s statements during the state-court proceedings were misleading or deceptive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting false, deceptive or misleading representations in connection with the collection of any debt); cf. Janson v. Katharyn B. Davis, LLC, 806 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of FDCPA claim where plaintiff did not allege that defendant attorneys swore to facts they knew to be false). On appeal, Burns does not challenge the district court’s determination that the attorney’s fees Grisham sought to collect were permitted by Arkansas law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f (prohibiting debt collector from collecting or attempting to collect any amount not expressly authorized by agreement creating debt or permitted by law); Hageman v. Barton, 817 F.3d 611, 619 (8th Cir. 2016) (to succeed on claim under § 1692f, plaintiff must establish that amounts sought were not authorized by law or by contract).

Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
     
      
      . Bums named “Grisham Law Firm” as an additional defendant, but it was clarified during the proceedings that this entity does not exist.
     
      
      .Bums does not challenge on appeal the disposition of his state-law claims. See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not briefed on appeal are abandoned).