Case Name: LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USA DIRECT, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-19
Citations: 56 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 02-1461
Parties: LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USA DIRECT, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USA DIRECT, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 24, 2003.
Decided Feb. 19, 2003.
ARGUED: Richard E. Gardiner, Fair-fax, Virginia, for Appellant. John Hardin Young, Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C., Washington, DC, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joseph E. Sandler, Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C., Washington, DC, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (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, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (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 nonmov-ant 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), cannot be "conclusory statements . without specific evidentiary support," Cau-sey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 801-02 (4th Cir.1998), cannot 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.