Case Name: Michael U. OBEYA, Individually and t/a Myke Services, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRITISH SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-09
Citations: 104 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 04-1204
Parties: Michael U. OBEYA, Individually and t/a Myke Services, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRITISH SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Michael U. OBEYA, Individually and t/a Myke Services, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRITISH SCHOOL OF WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-1204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 9, 2004.
Fatai A. Suleman, Amorow & Kum, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for Appellant.
Alan M. Schwartz, Columbia, Maryland; Geoffrey H. Genth, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael U. Obeya appeals a district court judgment granting summary judgment to the British School of Washington ("School") and dismissing his complaint raising allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) and charging the School with tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. Finding no error, we affirm.
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 genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Ca-trett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). All factual evidence, and all justifiable inferences drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). However, the non-moving party may not rely upon mere allegations. Rather, supported by affidavits or other verified evidence, his response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Cray Communications, Inc. v. No-vatel Computer Sys., Inc., 33 F.3d 390, 393-94 (4th Cir.1994).
We affirm the judgment on the reasoning of the district court. See Obeya v. British Sch. of Wash., No. CA-01-3158MJG (D.Md. Jan. 7, 2004). 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
Obeya does not challenge the district court's early dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.