Edward Shlikas v. Arrow Financial Services, No. 12-1043 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1043 EDWARD G. SHLIKAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES; PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INCORPORATED; DIVERSIFIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; JEFFREY CARLINO; OSI EDUCATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SALLIE MAE, INCORPORATED; GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION GUARANTY CORPORATION; UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants Appellees, and HEMAR; NORWEST, INCORPORATED; WELLS FARGO, INCORPORATED; GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; MARYLAND STATE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-02106-WDQ) Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. August 1, 2012 Edward G. Shlikas, Appellant Pro Se. Rand Lewis Gelber, LAW OFFICES OF RAND L. GELBER, Rockville, Maryland; Jonathan Edward Claiborne, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Edward G. Shlikas appeals from the district court s orders entering judgment in favor of the Defendants on his civil action and denying, in part, his motion for attorney fees and costs. We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district have reviewed court. Shlikas the v. record Arrow and Fin. find Servs., no reversible No. 1:06-cv- 02106-WDQ (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2007; June 5, 2008; May 4, 2009; Aug. 26, 2010; Nov. 16, 2011). 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.