Court Opinion

ID: 9398697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 21:00:44.898439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.624735
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1548      Doc: 19         Filed: 05/30/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1548

        PIERO A. BUGONI, Individually,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee,

                     and

        RICHARD KURLAND,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:20-cv-01133-SAG)

        Submitted: February 9, 2023                                       Decided: May 30, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Piero A. Bugoni, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Connolly, KRAMER & CONNOLLY,
        Reisterstown, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1548      Doc: 19         Filed: 05/30/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Piero A. Bugoni appeals the district court’s orders granting in part Defendants’

        motions to dismiss and granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

        stated by the district court. Bugoni v. Empl. Background Investigations, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-

        01133-SAG (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2020 & Mar. 25, 2022). 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

                                                     2