Case Name: William A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (USA); Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, PA, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-21
Citations: 405 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 09-2320
Parties: William A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (USA); Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, PA, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 789–789

Head Matter:
William A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (USA); Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, PA, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-2320.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 21, 2010.
Jason Ostendorf, Law Office of Jason Ostendorf, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Julia B. Strickland, Marcos D. Sasso, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Los Angeles, California; J. Preston Turner, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey N. Pritzker, Randolph Baker, Margolis, Pritzker, Epstein & Blatt, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William A. Hawkins appeals the district court's order dismissing, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), his civil action asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hawkins v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d 518 (D.Md.2009) & (entered Oct. 26, 2009). 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.