Case Name: Adrienne RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-08
Citations: 583 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 14-1039
Parties: Adrienne RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Adrienne RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1039.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 8, 2014.
E. David Hoskins, Max F. Brauer, The Law Offices of E. David Hoskins, LLC, Baltimore, MD, for Appellant. Lauren M. Burnette, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Camp Hill, PA, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrienne Richardson appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint. In her complaint, Richardson. alleged that Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692-1692p ("FDCPA"), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md.Code Ann., Com. Law, § 14-201 to -204, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md.Code Ann., Com. Law, § 13-101 to - 501.
We have considered the parties' arguments and have reviewed the district court's order de novo. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir.2011). Having found no reversible error, we affirm the district court's order. See Richardson v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01356-CCB (D.Md. Dec. 18, 2013); see also Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 331-33 (6th Cir.2006) (rejecting argument that a debt collection lawsuit filed "without the immediate means of proving the existence, amount, or true owner of the debt is deceptive" under the FDCPA, and dismissing plaintiffs allegation that defendant violated the FDCPA when she "never denied in her complaint that she owed [defendant] a debt, nor did she claim [defendant] misstated or misrepresented the amount that she owed"). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this Court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.