Court Opinion

ID: 9381129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:09.609528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.229439
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1942      Doc: 32         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1942

        MICHAEL C. WORSHAM,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DISCOUNT POWER, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00008-RDB)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Craig Worsham, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Adam Scotti, GORDON REES
        SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1942      Doc: 32          Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael C. Worsham appeals from the district court’s orders entering judgment in

        favor of Discount Power, Inc. (“Discount Power”), in his action alleging violations of the

        Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the Maryland Telephone

        Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-3201 to 14-3202. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Worsham’s motion

        to direct the district court to transmit evidence to this court, and we affirm for the reasons

        stated by the district court. Worsham v. Disc. Power, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00008-RDB

        (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2021; Aug. 4, 2022). We deny Worsham’s motion for 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

                                                      2