UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF 

AMERICA, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,  No. 02-1461

v.

USA DIRECT, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-01-929)

Argued: January 24, 2003

Decided: February 19, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.

John Hardin Young, SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joseph E. Sandler, SANDLER,

REIFF & YOUNG, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc. (LEAA), appeals the

district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of the defendant,

USA Direct, Inc., in LEAA’s action for damages arising from USA

Direct’s provision of database management services. 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 material facts in dispute and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

All reasonable inferences are "viewed in the light most favorable to

the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

Although the moving party must provide more than a conclusory

statement that there are no genuine issues of material fact to support

a motion for summary judgment, it "‘need not produce evidence, but

simply can argue that there is an absence of evidence by which the

nonmovant can prove his case.’" Cray Communications, Inc. v. Novatel Comp. Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 393-94 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting

10A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 2720, at 10 (2d ed. Supp. 1994)); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325

("[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’

—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence

of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case."). Once the moving party has met its burden, "the nonmoving party must come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial.’" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

The nonmoving party’s evidence must be probative, not merely colorable, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986), cannot be "conclusory statements . . . without specific evidentiary

support," Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801-02 (4th Cir. 1998), can2 LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA v. USA DIRECT
not be hearsay, Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d

954, 962 (4th Cir. 1996), and must "contain admissible evidence and

be based on personal knowledge." Id.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the parties’ briefs, the record from the court below, and the

relevant legal authority, we conclude that the district court correctly

resolved the issues before it. See Law Enforcement Alliance of Am. v.

USA Direct, Inc., Civ. No. 01-929-A (E.D. Va. April 10, 2002). Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of USA Direct. 

AFFIRMED

LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA v. USA DIRECT 3