Case Name: T. Michael SCOTT; Suffern Associates, LLC; Catherine C. Davis; Michael D. Davis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, successor by merger to Branch Banking and Trust Company of Virginia, Defendant-Appellee. Virginia Bankers Association, Amicus Supporting Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-26
Citations: 332 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 09-1041
Parties: T. Michael SCOTT; Suffern Associates, LLC; Catherine C. Davis; Michael D. Davis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, successor by merger to Branch Banking and Trust Company of Virginia, Defendant-Appellee. Virginia Bankers Association, Amicus Supporting Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
T. Michael SCOTT; Suffern Associates, LLC; Catherine C. Davis; Michael D. Davis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, successor by merger to Branch Banking and Trust Company of Virginia, Defendant-Appellee. Virginia Bankers Association, Amicus Supporting Appellee.
No. 09-1041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 7, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2009.
Brian M. Maul, Gordon & Simmons, LLC, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellants. Paul M. Black, Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia; Alan D. Wing-field, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Joseph E. Spruill, III, Virginia Bankers Association, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Amicus Supporting Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
T. Michael Scott, Suffern Associates, LLC, Catherine C. Davis, and Michael D. Davis appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss their civil action and denying leave to amend their complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scott v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 588 F.Supp.2d 667 (W.D.Va.2008). 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.