Case Name: MONTAGE FURNITURE SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENCY FURNITURE, INCORPORATED; Sammy Furniture, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Catonsville, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture Of Easton, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Frederick, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Golden Ring, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Hagerstown, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Laurel, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Pasadena, Incorporated; Sammy Home Store of Frederick, Incorporated; Sammy Home Store of Hagerstown, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-04
Citations: 503 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 12-1715
Parties: MONTAGE FURNITURE SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENCY FURNITURE, INCORPORATED; Sammy Furniture, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Catonsville, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture Of Easton, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Frederick, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Golden Ring, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Hagerstown, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Laurel, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Pasadena, Incor porated; Sammy Home Store of Frederick, Incorporated; Sammy Home Store of Hagerstown, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
MONTAGE FURNITURE SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENCY FURNITURE, INCORPORATED; Sammy Furniture, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Catonsville, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture Of Easton, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Frederick, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Golden Ring, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Hagerstown, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Laurel, Incorporated; Sammy Furniture of Pasadena, Incor porated; Sammy Home Store of Frederick, Incorporated; Sammy Home Store of Hagerstown, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-1715.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 19, 2012.
Decided: Jan. 4, 2013.
Derek P. Roussillon, Miles & Stock-bridge, PC, Baltimore, Maryland; Brian J. Masternak, David S. Ludington, Warner, Norcross & Judd, LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. Jonathan A. Azrael, Azrael, Franz, Schwab & Lipowitz, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Montage Furniture Services, LLC ("Montage") appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Montage argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on its claim for unjust enrichment. We affirm.
We review whether a district court erred in granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court. Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir.2012). Summary judgment is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. "On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts." Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Montage's unjust enrichment claim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.